Thinking that bathroom stings are out of line doesn't mean you hate children

think sex in bathrooms is OK or that Craig is a decent man. Sex in restrooms is simply not that common, sorry it just isn't. These raids have a horrid history and a horrid present. In Ft. Lauderdale the mayor wishes to spend hundreds of thousands on special toilets to supposedly combat restroom sex despite there being no evidence of it occuring. In Michigan, there have been several dubious stings. When the police have been asked for the documentation of the calls which led them to set them up they refuse to provide them.

One can think the police are heavy handed without favoring the activities they are wishing to curtail. I am about as anti gun as you can find but I surely would have a problem with letting the police search houses to find guns. Last I checked one of the central notions of liberalism is that we don't favor unfettered police power. These raids define unfettered police power.

Police go into a restroom, solicit sex from a male, and when the male agrees to have the sex, they arrest them. Often the agreement to have the sex is to have it elsewhere but they still arrest.

I can understand that bathroom sex is nasty. I can understand that no one wants hit on in the restroom and they surely don't want their children hit on in the restroom. But any reasonable reading of the Craig case shows that people who weren't there for sex wouldn't get bothered at all by these people (even if you think the cops are telling the gospel truth).

I honestly am tired of being portrayed as favoring bathroom sex. I just think that cops should have limits. I just don't think peeing while gay should be a crime in order to catch those who wish to have sex in bathrooms.

Nearly every large city police department had a fag squad whose job it was to arrest gays in virtually any way possible. They routinely raided gay bars and set up bathroom stings. The typical sting would consist of a very good looking cop soliciting a man and when he said yes slap on the cuffs. Often times the sex would be set for somewhere else, a car or other reasonably private place, but the arrest would take place anyway. Gays back in the day would never leave home without a lawyers phone number, that is how common these arrests were.

what Larry Craig experienced was entrapment. He sounded like the instigator. He didn't deny the cop's version of events, at least the part about Craig peeping into the stall and then playing footsie. I don't deny your assertion that gays have historically been harassed, but I just don't see it in Craig's case.

Craig claims the cop started the foot thing. He also denies the peeping.

touched the cop's by accident because of his wide stance. Quote: "I'm a wide guy!" I heard the cop tell Craig that he saw his blue eyes staring in at him. I'm sorry, but it's very clear to me that Craig was looking for action. Crime of the century? Hell no. Still a violation of Minnesota law? Apparently so, and Craig agreed and pleaded guilty. There's simply nothing more to say.

restroom and setting one up in a privately owned bar (gay or not).

One can presume that no children are going to use the latter, and that many patrons would not be offended if others were trying to set up a "date" since many people go to bars to seek dates. These presumptions don't apply to airport restrooms.

read up on pre-Stonewall gay history. Particularly Martin Duberman's book Stonewall. There were cops (attractive, dressed a certain way, tight fitting chinos and polo shirts) who followed men from bar to bar trying to start up conversations just to bust the guys later on. Cops routinely "chatted up" or overtly flirted with gay men in order to arrest them later. Happened all the time...and not just in restrooms. A guy could get arrested for lighting a cop's cigarette for him.

You know, doing something productive. :eyes:

Frankly, I think it's all a little silly. I've been in a lot of airport men's rooms, and I've never seen any gay sex, I've never been hit on (maybe it's me? :shrug: :cry:)... and although I don't know if I've ever been in the Minneapolis airport, I have a hard time imagining it's such a massive problem that they need to pay some dude full time to hang out in the john.

Doesn't Minneapolis have any violent crime that needs tending to?

It's weird, really weird.

...I heard, on at least one newscast, that the restroom Craig was busted in was listed on some web site as being a good spot for engaging in anonymous sex. I don't know if this is true. I'm just reporting what I heard. So, even though I tend to think you're correct in your assertion that such activity is relatively rare, I don't disagree with law enforcement's attempt to curtail it at known "hot spots."

Apparently the cops were luring people to this restroom, by making "dates" online ahead of time and arranging to meet up.

Now, agreed, anyone stupid enough to do that deserves what he/she gets.

But, it puts the entire "sting" into a very different light. One has to wonder, was this a real problem, or did the police help create it?

I wonder if Craig was participating in an encounter that had been pre-arranged online.

I don't deny that police entrap people for many reasons. Nor do I deny that gays have been and are being unfairly targeted in these types of operations. However that said, it is up to the individual to use their own brains and common sense to keep out of trouble.

The WOD provides some good parallel examples. I don't care how the person is dressed, how they act, what they look like, if a stranger approaches me anywhere asking to buy or sell dope, I politely excuse myself and go on. The offer good very well be legit, I could very well be passing up a wonderful opportunity to smoke some killer sativa, but I also know that what I'm engaging in is considered illegal and if I don't want to get arrested, I simply say no.

The same goes for cruising the bathrooms. I don't care what the person looks like, how they act, what they say, I realize that responding positively to a public bathroom proposition is going to open me up to possible legal trouble. Therefore the best policy is to say know. If you really want to get to know this person, set up a later date for having dinner, getting a drink, you know, the regular courting rituals. If the guy is a cop, he'll probably beg off, if not it could be the start of something special. Either way, you are keeping your ass out of jail.

Is this situation right or ethical, no. But it is reality in this country. And the simple fact of the matter is that no matter how much you villify the cops or our countries homophobia, you and only you can act to save yourself in these situations by simply saying no. You can whine and moan about entrapment and stings and setups all you want, but it still comes down to a matter of personal responsibility, looking out to minimize your own risks and keep yourself safe.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here:shrug:

The word is "regardless".

Especially since I've found it both in an online Webster's <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irregardless> and in my old double book print Websters that was published over fifty years ago.

Apparently it is something that bothers the grammar police, but irregardless, it is still a word;)

Like mixing up "lose" and "loose".

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

what's so hard to understand? our forefathers must be roLLing in their graves. even the decLaration of independence makes reference to it in our decLaration of independence as it was one of the reasons we revoLted against engLish ruLe.

in the course of human events there comes a time when man must break free from the motherLand, and creepy gazes through the bathroom staLL.

Take it elsewhere.

If 2 men are caught having sex in a bathroom, I want them arrested.

On the other hand, I don't want police officers arresting someone who doesn't have sex in a bathroom. Craig did not commit a crime (even if that was his intention).

Same with the police women who pose as prostitutes. It's wrong.

I made a similar argument in a thread a few days ago and got pounced on just like you have been getting pounced on. I still stand by my statement though, it is dead wrong to have undercover cops trying to turn gay men on just so they can arrest them. I have never heard of them doing such a thing to heterosexuals looking for sex unless it involves prostitution.

Apparently the cops in this Minnesota sting went online and lured targets into this restroom, set them up and then arrested them when they reciprocated the advance.

Now, I'm sure Craig was not responding to an online inducement.

But, others were, and it certainly it puts the cops, and the whole sting, in a very different light.

If this was such a problem, as some have maintained, why did the cops have to resort to making sex dates online in order to find people to arrest?

Like tough on crime only "tough on gays" or something. Very very sad. I bet some republican up for re-election on a "family values" platform is behind this whole thing.

and it was all down hill from there.

of course i think the hypocrisy threads bring out the bigots in liberals --

and then arrested those who showed up. That certainly puts this sting in a different life.

... Anymore than when they advertise a gun turn-in, and it turns out to be an warrant-arrest sting.

so they had to respond to it - public welfare and all.

If it was such a problem, why did they have to go online, make "sex dates" with people, lure them to this bathroom and then arrest them?

but does call into question the cops and the whole sting

I've heard of prostitution even when there isn't a sting operation. I've heard of drug dealing even when there isn't a sting operation. But no one I've ever heard from has ever seen gay men having sex in bathrooms. I've never heard of anyone seeing this. The only reason I know it happens is that people have been caught by police officers. This is very odd.

Consenting adults having sex in a bathroom is just tacky.

when public restrooms are being used for hit and run sex? I don't want to go into a public bathroom and see people having sex. Kids do use restrooms. If not the "sting," then how would you handle it?

but the solution would depend upon the placement of the restroom. The airport one I would have a valet for it. That would end the problem immediately. For isolated ones maybe a sting would be in order provided there were real, verifiable complaints about that activity. I have yet to see a case of that.

If you are going to have a plainsclothes cop there, why not put one in uniform around? I guess people wanting to hook up would just wait until said cop leaves, but it seems it would put a damper on things. Or how about a valet?

If this was such a big problem why not have security stroll into the bathrooms once an hour or so? Gawd knows, in any airport there's tons of security officers running around. How much time would it take for them to rotate wondering into the bathrooms? Looks to me like the cops were looking to bust.

To me, the whole thing stinks of a set up ala prostitution busts where a female cop hangs around under a street lamp & waits for some idiot to come on to her.

use of bathrooms as hooking up places for sex.

I think it is reasonable to limit bathroom use for what their intended purpose.

Maybe there should be social lounges in airports so that people can meet and arrange to go to hotels. For cover the lounges can have tables for playing chess.

and I am of a very mixed mind about that commentary. Until I can actually find the words I don't know if I will comment.

Then you get your choice. You can pick the non-sex room to use a public toilet for its intended function, or you can go to the public restroom designated for anonymous sex. Because sex in a public toilet is so erotic, isn't it?:shrug:

"One can think the police are heavy handed without favoring the activities they are wishing to curtail. I am about as anti gun as you can find but I surely would have a problem with letting the police search houses to find guns."

If the police are able to get a search warrant from a neutral magistate upon probable cause I don't have a problem with the police searching my home...

When I go into the restroom and close the door I have a reasonable expectaion of privacy that can't be pierced unless I am using that stall to break the law... I don't want anybody peeking through a crack in the stall to see if I'm a suitable sexual partner and I don't care if that person looks like Matt Damon or Salma Hayek...

I don't see any difference between a man or woman sneaking a peek at me when I'm in a closed bathroom on the can and the government peeking at my e-mail or listening to my overseas phone calls...

As far as two people having sex in a public restroom I don't have a large problem with it but I can see how others can...If you want to make restroom sex legal I suggest you petition your elected officials...


I must be "special"...When I was thirteen years old I was urinating in the restroom of a DeLand, Florida department store and this old, bald man leaned over me and said "would you like to feel the juices?"... I have also seen the immediate aftermath of two men getting busy in an Altamonte Springs , Florida departmment store restroom

No where in my post do I say I favor legal sex in bathrooms. Clearly I state the opposite but apparently you just chose not to bother to read it. More to the point, your example for the guns is completely not on point. These stings are not targetted like search warrents. They often claim to have complaints about a restroom which never get produced. This is the equivalent of there being complaints of a shooting on your block and searching every single house. And then, when you ask for a copy of the complaints they say "sorry we don't write those down".

On edit

The first thing that happened to you in the restroom was not just wrong but an actual crime in my book. And I would have no problem with stings to end that behavior provided they were not entrapment but actual legit stings (there is a difference). The second was also a crime but in my mind not a crime worthy of a sting senario.

I have no problem with what two consenting adults do or one thousand consenting adults do but when I go into a bathroom stall and close the door I expect my privacy to be respected and when someone peeks into see if I'm a suitable sexual partner, even for a second, they have grossly, grossly violated my privacy and I feel violated...Such behavior should be discouraged....

Again, what two consenting adults do or two hundred consenting adults do is not by business... It's not about protecting my rights , your rights or a child's rights but about respecting all of our's right to privacy..