Tap Tap Tap
Posted by Moonage on 29 Aug 2007 | Tagged as: Comments from the Host, Political Correctness, The Legal Process
When I was in college, I had a frat brother who was the queerest human male on this planet. He wasn’t just gay, he was flaming. He loved being gay and flaunted it excessively and publicly. This guy was about six feet four inches and probably in the neighborhood of about three hundred pounds. Now, I wasn’t the least bit gay, or even the least bit curious, so it was loads of fun for me to watch this guy harass the life out of young preppy frat wannabes at the local bars. Because of this, I had to associate with him in public. I enjoyed the carnival show, and he tended to run with a very, very, physical and rough crowd, so I was pretty safe physically. It almost never led to anything as he would usually just drink himself into a stupor and pass out. Because of his extremely aggressive and overt nature, I learned a lot about the gay community whether I wanted to or not. If I walked into a bar and a shot of tequila was brought to me, I was the object of some gay man’s desire. If I accepted, I was expected to at the very least meet the person and acknowledge their advance. It was always my friend, so I always accepted. There were other signals and cues that my friend made me aware of, and I saw them in practice fairly often as he generally would be able to single out the gay guys out of the hundreds of drunk people in any bar. I live in rural Kentucky, gay guys for the most didn’t make it that obvious then. My friend however, could single them out in a heartbeat. One thing I was never made aware of by him or any of his bunch was tap, tap, tap in a stall. Now, according to Michael at Gayorbit.com, every gay guy knows this. Some guys in the comments claim they didn’t know it, but others assure them they are just out of touch or not practicing enough. Now, this kinda bothers me. The average duration it takes for me to take a good pee is about fifteen to twenty seconds or so. I’m just not one of those people that goes on and on. Addititonally, I’m a fidgety pee’r. I just don’t like standing still for any reason at all. Often, I will tap my foot. In the duration of an average pee, I can easily see that being tap, tap, tap. Am I being lewd? Would I have been arrested in Minnesota? Are a lot of gay guys po’d at me because I sent a signal and walked away? Sheez. I will never tap my foot in a stall again. Ever. Guaranteed. And if I am lost in thought or drunk or something and accidentally do tap my foot to the perfect rhythm and get busted for being lewd, I’m fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court. Being bored and having rhythm doesn’t prove I’m gay and they’d have no other evidence to prove otherwise.
This is nuts. Larry Craig is probably a victim in this case. However, because he did the stupidest legal move you can by being his own attorney and pleading guilty, he’s in a world of hurt and it’s his fault. But, the ramifications of this situation are pretty unnerving to me. I usually could care less if someone’s occupying the stall next to me. Now, chances are it’s either a gay guy cruising or a cop or both. I think from now on I’ll just wait till it’s empty.
6 Comments »
on 13 Sep 2007 at 1:08 am 1.mw
said …
“Being bored and having rhythm doesn’t prove I’m gay and they’d have no other evidence to prove otherwise. This is nuts. Larry Craig is probably a victim in this case.” -moon
Not to mention that being gay is not a crime in Minnesota, as far as I know. I completely agree about the non-criminality of Craig’s actions (ignoring his actual plea). The problem for
yourour (I recently converted to Republicanism myself) party, is that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are apoplectic about his foot-tapping, are demanding an ethics investigation and calling for his resignation. Interesting to see how that squares with the standing ovation given David Vitter upon his post-prostitute confession and return to the Republican caucus. Huh. I wonder what was the difference between the two?Personally, I think Craig should stick it out (not literally), and let the voters of Idaho decide. It his Republican brethren that won’t let him.
on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:28 am 2.Moonage
said …
In comparing it to Vitter, I can see a few differences. Vitter admitted he was a bad boy and apologized to the world. Craig said he was framed and blamed the cop, the press, and just about everyone else. Craig pled guilty to a crime that may or may not have been committed. Vitter is still an innocent man in the eyes of the law. Vitter was caught doing a pretty normal thing in a pretty normal place. Craig was caught wanting to do something a lot of people aren’t comfortable with in a very unusual place by most people’s standards. And lastly, if it weren’t for phone records, no one would have ever caught Vitter. Anyone taking a pee, including small children, would have been made aware something wasn’t just right in that bathroom. So, I don’t think this is a case of hypocrasy at all. This is all assuming that is what Craig had in mind. I still think his mess is more because he pled guilty and how he’s handled it than actually breaking any law. But, if that IS what he had in mind at the time, comparing it to discretely having sex won’t fly with me. If he had hit on some gay guy in a gay bar and gone to a hotel, none of this would have ever made the news.
on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:38 am 3.mw
said …
Being libertarian leaning in my political views, I concur that victimless crimes like prostitution should be legal - I was just unaware that Washington DC and Louisiana were so forward thinking and had joined Nevada legalizing it.
Net - net, you are right. The difference is that Craig pleaded guilty to a legal charge. If he succeeds in getting that plea vacated, he’ll beat the rap. They got nothing. The voters of Idaho and Louisiana can decide if this is how they want to be represented.
Presumably they’d both be challenged and defeated in primaries.
If not, a 60 vote plurality in the Senate for Dems is in play.
on 13 Sep 2007 at 6:10 pm 4.Moonage
said …
I don’t think LA and DC legalized anything, the problem is he was doing it in public. If he had solicited a cop in DC or LA I would assume the result would have been about the same.
And I do agree, victimless crimes like prostitution are a waste to the legal system and only pushes such activities into places like men’s stalls. Brothels used to be social centers of a lot of towns, those were supposedly the “good old days”. If they were so good, we need to take that into consideration. And, that’s probably WHY they were the good old days as well.
I wasn’t singling out the fact he pled guilty. It was just one of the reasons there was a difference. The biggie being doing it in private and doing it in public.
What Vitter did in New Orleans isn’t even a no-no in New Orleans. It’s just not legal. He’ll be fine in Louisiana. It’s not much of a voting issue in Idaho either, Craig had already decided not to run for re-election before all this happened.
Although the seat could be in play in Louisiana theoretically, it won’t switch parties in Idaho. If Craig had resigned, the Republican governor would have nominated a Republican to replace him and given that Republican a full year to solidify his base in probably the strongest Republican state in the nation. As it is, since Craig had already announced he was not returning, the candidates have already been raising money and preparing for 2008. My prognostication after all this blows over is nothing changes before 2008. And, if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi continue their roles as leadership, it could wind up costing the Dems.
For a Republican you sure seem awful excited about losing.
on 14 Sep 2007 at 1:25 am 5.mw
said …
I am actually a Dividist. But to keep things divided I have to be Republican this go round, as the only way to keep things divided is to keep a Republican in the White House. I’m fine with the Dems keeping Congress. its unavoidable anyway in 2008.
We have had this discussion before about whether the Republicans can retake either house of Congress in 2008. I’m saying it cannot happen regardless of anything Pelosi or Reid do. As I recall, I offered a wager which you declined. I’ll offer it again. I wager the Democrats retain majorities in both the House and Senate, and increase their majority in the Senate.
Winner gets an unedited guest post on the loser’s blog.
on 14 Sep 2007 at 7:34 am 6.Moonage
said …
As I said before, I haven’t made any assumptions as to what’s going to happen in 2008. So, making a wager is meaningless at this time. A lot can and will happen between now and next November. I’ll probably start making wagers next September or October I imagine. Until then, I’m going to watch Nancy and Harry do their stuff, see how Thompson affects things, and continue to monitor how lopsidedly biased the media is and how/if they affect the races next fall. As much as they’ve made of the Craig affair while pretty much simultaneously giving William Jefferson a free pass for actually abusing his office, I really think the New York Times, MSNBC’s, CNN’s, and CBS’s aren’t going to mess around next fall and do everything they can to assure your dream of a divided government is crushed with a pure Democrat majority.
And unless some Republican candidate lights a fire for those who are not satisfied with what the Democrats are offering, the very biased media will get exactly what they want.