Compassion

[telerib]

The worst sin in American politics, methinks, is hypocrisy. Which is deeply ironic, given that so much of politics is the art of compromise.

There are, I'd estimate, three camps calling for Larry Craig's head. There are the folks who say that since he plead guilty, he should resign. There are the folks who say "since he plead guilty" and mean "since he's probably gay." And there are the folks who are incensed over the hypocrisy of a possibly/probably gay man who has been so opposed to LBGT rights.

I admit that I kinda felt sorry for him, as a man if not as a senator. How awful must it be to be 62 years old and resorting to anonymous trysts? I've only ever heard that the closet is a terrible place to be, and this man appears to be deeply, deeply in the closet. If he believes the policies he's supported, how much self-loathing must he have?

Former NJ governor Jim McGreevey, who resigned when it came to light that his foreign (male) lover had been given a security-sensitive government job, gives his account of his double life and expulsion from the closet.

Comments

[cmccurry.livejournal.com]

I can't really find a shred of pity for either of them. Both Craig and McGreevey leave me with the impressions that their statements are nothing more than "I'm sorry I got caught and now I would like to justify my behavior."

Senator Craig solicited sex in a men's bathroom then tried to use his Senatorial credentials to talk his way out of an arrest. I have no issue with the man being homosexual, but I have no compassion for him because of his actions. You break the law, you pay the price.

As for McGreevey, I'm a bit more sympathetic to his ex-wife whose life he wrecked because he couldn't be honest with himself and whom he treated like garbage just before he made his coming out speech.

I've got more compassion to normal folks who are dealing with their sexual identities and don't have millions of dollars or a press corps to smooth things over.

[telerib.livejournal.com]

I figure most people feel that way. Guess that's why I posted.

I have no compassion for him because of his actions.

Well, yeah. This would be a case of "in spite of."

I don't like the policies he espouses; I don't like his attempts at a cover up; if I ever met him, I suspect I wouldn't like him. But I still think it must suck to be him.

(Also, I find it bizarre that soliciting consensual, free sex is an arrestable offense. Why is it legal on the street or in a bar but not in a bathroom? If someone persisted, that'd be harassment, but if a guy bumped my foot meaningfully in a bar I'd just get on with my life.)

[cmccurry.livejournal.com]

The reason it's an arrestable offense might be the location. Normally, you don't go to the bathroom with an expectation to hook up with someone.

But hey; at least the Karmic Wheel has power steering. And the net being what it is insures that things like this are never forgotten.

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

I find it bizarre that soliciting consensual, free sex is an arrestable offense. Why is it legal on the street or in a bar but not in a bathroom?

It's a sort of preemptive strike against people who actually get it on in bathrooms. I don't know the specifics of the offense that he was arrested under, but I'm guessing that it was originally put forth as a sort of "public lewdness" offense. If it happens in a bar, there are often different violations, such as "forcible touching" or various sexual assault laws. The fact that they offered him a deal by cutting it down to "disorderly conduct" seems to indicate they thought it wasn't an airtight case.

As to why it's a crime... there's a general belief that people shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity in front of those who haven't explicitly consented, I'd say. They're trying to bust people who have taken specific actions to indicate they're wanting to do something illegal, in a place where the police have gotten complaints about it. It would probably have been more effective if the Minneapolis airport had stationed a "washroom attendant" in there full-time (and it would surely have kept the bathroom cleaner!), though. Still, it's like the cops setting up a drug sting around an open-air drug market.

It's not like Craig looked the guy in the eye and said, "Hey, you're cute. Want to go get a hotel room?"

[telerib.livejournal.com]

It's a sort of preemptive strike against people who actually get it on in bathrooms.

...so the 'bathroom code' is sufficiently well-developed that the officer can tell the difference between a hand sign (or foot tap, or whatever) that means "Meet me outside the bathroom and we'll shack up somewhere" and one that means "Meet me in this stall"?

I mean, I get that public sex is a no-no. Publicly asking for sex... well, they'd have to set up sting operations at every construction site where women with functioning limbs and both eyes walk past. Publicly asking for public sex, yeah, that'd be like the boy genius what got arrested for shouting out of his dorm window that he was selling pot (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295885,00.html).

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

...so the 'bathroom code' is sufficiently well-developed that the officer can tell the difference between a hand sign (or foot tap, or whatever) that means "Meet me outside the bathroom and we'll shack up somewhere" and one that means "Meet me in this stall"?

As I understand it, the "bathroom code" is based on the behavior patterns of cruisy guys, which makes "Meet me outside and we'll go someplace else" about as likely as "Meet me outside and we'll discuss the nuances of meaning in 'Waiting For Godot'". Much of my foundation here is based on Christopher Hitchens' piece in Slate on the subject, but he seems to imply that a big chuck of the thrill is the immediacy of the act, and the risk of getting caught. It does remind me of the stink that got raised some years ago when George Michael got busted in a park bathroom, too.