Both the news media and the blogosphere have been roaring their disapproval of Sen. Larry Craig’s “hypocrisy” after he was arrested for alleged lewd conduct in a Minneapolis/St. Paul airport restroom.
But exactly how was Craig allegedly hypocritical? That’s where the accusations become vague — they preach to the converted and assume that any hypocrisy is self-evident.
I don’t think it is.
We don’t know whether Craig is predominantly attracted to the same gender and therefore “gay.” Even if he were, it is not necessarily hypocritical to be homosexual and to oppose same-sex marriage and inclusion in hate-crime laws (though I do find those stances unjust and purposely mean).
What is hypocritical, in my opinion, is the tendency of people like Craig and avowed ex-gay activists like Michael Johnston to advocate for laws that would punish people who live responsible, honest and healthy lives — while these antigay advocates 1) practice sexual irresponsibility and dishonesty, putting other people’s health at risk, and 2) falsely assert that their own secret down-lowness is representative not of themselves, but of the innocents whom they battle.
In other words, it is not sexual orientation or “identity” that makes closeted or down-low antigay advocates hypocritical. It is their unethical, illegal and unhealthy sexual behavior — and perhaps more importantly, their false accusations and discrimination against those who live and act responsibly.
Some more random thoughts:
1. So long as he defends the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” approach to alleged lewdness, Craig is a) unfashionably ungay, and b) not a hypocrite, but rather a possible example of DADT promoting misconduct and dishonesty.
2. If Craig were to come clean about his degree of sexual and romantic attraction to men vs. women, he could promote an informed public discussion of orientation and identity.
Here’s where I see hypocrisy in Craig:
He alligned himself politically with individuals who would consider his behavior in the bathroom as abhorent. He deliberately courted their approval, vote, and support. They rewarded him with their dollars, their votes, and their political efforts.
But Larry Craig was not the person he was pretending to be. They thought that he would be a champion of their values, values which I’m certain included cleaning up public places from sexual lurkers and illicit gay sex.
They gave Larry Craig money so he could protect their precious values from people like, well, Larry Craig.
And this I see as hypocrisy.
***NAUSEA WARNING***
Do you suppose Sen. Larry Craig ever had fun with Rep. Bob Allen in a bathroom in Ft. Lauderdale?
ick
Most people, gay and straight, consider restroom sex inappropriate and undesirable from a social and public-health standpoint, so I don’t see hypocrisy in that respect:
A politician shouldn’t be engaging in such behavior, regardless of whom he seeks support from.
Gay conservative Dale Carpenter notes that Craig may have committed no crime, and may have been unjustly arrested.
If so, the ACLU could prove useful in helping him defend his civil liberties against abuse by the police. It’s unfortunate that Craig and his allies are self-declared opponents of civil liberties.
You know, I feel really sorry for Sen. Craig. Usually, I’d be the first to jump up and down at the news of a republican scandal, but I don’t see it in that light at all. While blogging about it on my blog, I found myself feeling a strong sense of empathy, as I would think that many ex gay survivors(and ex-gays for that matter) would feel. For all of those, especially in the ex-ex-gay world, I ask you to not judge a man on the lack of compassion he has shown those who are ‘different,’ but rather, be the compassion that you want to see come from him.
There is a very interesting article on andrewsullivan.com that makes the argument of old gay culture vs. new gay culture. I am hard pressed to think of cases where out gays in public life (politicians, ministers, etc.) engage in illegal public sex. I am sure that some do, but you do not hear about such things generally. I have never engaged in such conduct or care to. Except for two people (who were both very troubled), I know of no one personally who does that. There are legal ways for sex, but most gay people I have known are fairly relationship minded (maybe because I am in a long term–those are the type of people I have known). Gay people are changing, and there is fairly strong disapproval towards illegal public sex among many gay people. AIDS helped to change that, but I also think that making gay sex legal across the board in Lawrence probably helped. We are no longer outlaws.
Still we see older, closeted public figures doing things increasingly that harm themselves. Funny, as soon as they seem to accept themselves (like Barney Frank), their lives seem more successful and productive.
Mike, I do agree, his actions don’t seem to merit arrest, but I was not there, and the senator did pleed guilty. I still am sure the intention was probably there. I think what was worse was his intention to claim he had political power to the officer.
I wonder how Craig voted on EPA sites, like Libby, Montana, and the asbestos mine waste cleanup there. Really I don’t give a damn if he was a homophobic hypocrite or not. My guess is he made life awful for a lot of people in other arenas. Republicans in this day and age are for the most part just bad for America.
So I don’t care if he committed a crime or not (honestly from the way it described, how lewd was it?), I ‘m just happy to be rid of the guy. Hopefully, the citizens of Idaho will show better judgement when they elect a new senator. This is their chance not to blow it…. again.
Very well done, Mike. This centrist stance is EXACTLY the kind of diversity that the GLBT culture contains and is almost never presented in the mainstream media.
It also happens to be the stance that I subscribe to.
Maybe this is the kind of homosexual ‘act’ between heterosexual men Paul was talking about in the Bible…
The whole situation reminds me of Timothy’s comment back here….
https://exgaywatch.com/2007/06/2492/#comment-26042
“I alway marvel that those who quote Matthew 7:1 (Do not judge, or you too will be judged.) don’t include the next verse – it’s even stronger:
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Senator Craig has some serious problems. Mike Rogers has been reporting on Senator Craig’s bathroom activities for at least a year. If anyone was on notice to watch his step, Senator Craig was.
This is a man that scored a zero on the HRC report card. He has voted for discrimination against honest open gay people right down the line. I think it is quite a stretch to say that he isn’t a hypocrit.
A more interesting issue to me is how Senator Craig will be treated officially by the Senate Ethics Committee compared to Senator Vitter, whose illegal sexual activities apparently involved female prostitutes in DC and in his home state.
A New York Times article this morning exemplifies media distortion of the topic of male/male and female/female sex:
and:
In both cases, male/male sex is presumptuously equated with gay sex. I say “presumptuous” because the article presumes that sex between two men somehow makes them gay.
If “gay” is defined as predominant attraction to the same gender (and it commonly is) then such reporting misinforms the public about the individuals in question, as well as about issues of sexual orientation, identity, and behavior.
It has become apparent to me that much of the media is just plain lazy and sloppy, more so than it is biased.
I wonder how disdainful Larry Craig’s rhetoric was toward Sen. James
McGreevey’s scandal in 2004 when McGreevey was eventually outed after
all the denials of sexual harassment and homosexual affairs, that
destroyed his family, employees, his state and his party? Craig no
doubt hid behind the same disapproval he used to vote against gay
marriage, well, that is to say a gay person can’t marry another gay
man/woman, but gays are welcome to marry a heterosexual man/or woman.
Like Barney Frank, and James McGreevey, Craig had such inner fear for
his homosexual attraction to other men that he had to suppress his
urges under a life long pattern of lies , but the truth can only be
suppressed for so long until those urges become destructive, and
perverted. The true perversion is the suppression of homosexuals,
where homosexuals never can become familiar with the acceptance of
committed relationships, that would grant rights ,like every other
human being on the face of the earth. Without this support,
homosexuals wander throughout the world, emotionally broken,
and at risk. The spread of hiv has increased beyond imagination
because of anonymous unsafe sex in the homosexual community ,perhaps from
detachment at a very early age, ostracized from religion, family, and
friends. In spite of this many homosexuals are successful in
overcoming this obstacle and have contributed invaluably to the world
, but sadly a great many don’t make it. THESE ARE THE FACTS. So I ask Larry
Craig, why is he so adamant that he is not a homosexual? Perhaps he
realizes what a shitty deal they have in this world, stuck in limbo imposed by the very government that these homosexuals pay taxes too! Shit I’d deny it too.
I don’t agree: These anti-gay politicians who get caught having gay sex in bathrooms are hypocrites because of it. They’re trying to take away the civil rights of others just because those others have the same desires they do. Further, they’re trying to take their sexual pleasure from the same people they’re trying to hurt.
Moreover, they’re hypocrites because of this in another way: as politicians, they get into office by proclaiming their patriotism loudly and often. Yet, in trying to take away the right to marry from gay people, they’re trying to create second class citizens: this inherently violates everything about the idea of equal citizenship that this nation was founded on, which means they’re destroying the very nation that they claim to love so much.
I have no sympathy for someone who has used his position of power to undermine the dignity and rights of LGBT folks.
He is clearly not “gay” – but a deeply homophobic man who very likely has homosexual attractions.
He is obviously more concerned about being labeled gay than having potentially committed a lewd act. I am furious that his statements imply the two are equated and that being gay is obviously in his mind worse.
I also have no sympathy for people engaging in public sex – regardless of sexual orientation. Sex in private is no longer criminal in the US – get a room!
It infuriates me when public figures (whether gay or self-loathing “homosexuals” who identify as heterosexual) do things like this (this includes Foley) — it hurts our community, reinforcing the stereotypes that gays are a public menace/predatory.
I’ll bet Craig opposed the Supreme Court’s decision to decriminalize consensual sodomy in public – as did many ex-gay and Christian Right leaders. Imagine how many ex-gays and self-loathing straight-identified homosexuals would be in jail if those laws were still being enforced.
No sympathy. Not an ounce.
I meant consensual sodomy in private.
Mr. Airhart typed earlier:
I need some help in understanding: When all the men go up to the hills to do their annual exercise at deer hunting, drink obscene amounts of alcohol and a minority find they had a little “fun” with another man… but they’re not really gay. What is it then? Just another level of male-bonding?
I guess these men will rationalize they’re not gay when the beer wears off and they eventually head down from the canyons and resume their “normal” activities with wife and kids. There must be a lot of relief going on in the minds of some men when they rationalize the male/male sex they took part in does not mean they’re gay. Besides, it only happens once a year.
At what point do we call it denial.
Mike- I agree with your comment about the NYT and other media confusing this incident and other similar incidents with gay sex. As I noted on my blog, a police officer that works on these types of cases told CNN that most of the perpetrators are married men. How that can honestly be referred to as “gay sex” (knowing that that connotation implies the openly gay community) is beyond me.
I also have to agree that this arrest seems flimsy. I’m decidedly against public sex, but surely arresting someone for tapping a foot is a bit early. What’s next, a guy winks at someone cute and gets arrested because he might try to progress to sex at some point? It’s not a road I particularly want to go down.
Frankly, your post makes me go ‘oh please.’
Whether he’s gay or bisexual, he most certainly is a hypocrite. His Senate voting record is clearly anti-GLBT, yet he was having gay sex. It would be one thing for him to be gay or bi and against same-sex marriage, etc. but not sexually active with men; then he wouldn’t be a hypocrite, just self-hating and closeted. But the fact that he took such a public and harsh stance against homosexuality and then had homosexual sex -does- make him a hypocrite.
I don’t doubt that Sen. Craig truly believes that same-sex sexual activity should be discouraged by law. Especially in the context of “gay activists”, something he would never consider himself to be. I’m sure that he sees a little “fooling around” to be quite a different thing than running around demanding marriage and rights and wearing womens clothes and dancing on floats and all of that “gay” stuff.
So in the sense that Sen. Craig is voting some way he doesn’t believe… well I don’t think that’s the case. So that isn’t where the hypocrisy comes in play.
But we are fairly sure – based not only on his secrecy and his guilty plea but also on a long history of semi-public knowledge in the Capital – that Sen. Craig does from time to time engage in extra-marital semi-public sexual behavior with other men. Other than the senator, I don’t think many people are denying that.
And here is where Larry Craig is engaging in hypocrisy. For all his public life he has presented himself to his constituents – and even his peers – as a man of moral character. He has publically allied himself with those who demand that politicians be good devoted Christian family men.
But Sen. Craig was not what he presented. He was feigning to be what he was not. He was presenting a false appearance of virtue.
It is not the same-sex nature of his behavior that is hypocrisy. That just makes him selfish, wanting what he seeks to deny to others. He would still be a hypocrit if he were caught seeking relations with women or cheating on his taxes or smuggling cigars from cuba.
Sen. Larry Craig set himself up as a man of morals and campaigned on that issue. But he is not a man of morals. He is, instead, a man with what appears to be a habit of seeking out extra-marital sexual behavior with strangers in public restrooms.
Sen. Larry Craig is, by definition, a hypocrit.
Warren Thockmorton got a lot of free press in a Politico article on this subject:
https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5550.html
Cowboy,
I think Brady answered your question about denial, at least partially. If a man is predominantly attracted to women, but has a male/male fling now and then, how is that gay? Sounds bi to me. Or perhaps a guy is completely hetero but finds that men are just much more sexually accessible, cheap, and willing to do things that women won’t do.
Joe Kort’s blog (http://www.straightguise.com) has discussed the distinction between male/male sex and gay sex at length.
Well, that’s about how I feel. It’s the solicitation of a stranger in a bathroom that gets me, it’s the fact that he abused his position of power to hurt others who respond to similar sexual stimuli to his that gets me. I accept the (very good) possibility that he’s actually bi, but being bi, would not want to call him “brother” as yet. I can see how gay men would feel that same way.
It’s like the old saying, “Point the finger at another, three point back at you.” He accused gays of being unable to be monogamous, unhealthy, dishonest, etc.–and he was really talking about himself. I can’t believe he didn’t hurt himself at least a little when he’d vote or talk anti-gay. It’s hard to fathom that sort of mind.
This is what I wrote in my blog this morning (it’s at the tail end of the entry, and there was a very nice comment in there from a familiar face, too.) I got pretty crude, but those who know me won’t be surprised:
Larry Craig’s says he’s not gay. I believe him, too! Obviously he just thought that poor man in the airport bathroom had a rattlesnake bite and needed the venom sucked out! I feel so sorry for his poor wife. Those sunglasses she wore for that farce of a press conference were almost as good as the paper bag she no doubt wanted to wear over her head. I suppose I should feel a bit sorry that Larry Craig had to deal with social pressures and all that, and maybe he’s actually bi and likes sex with his wife, but any man who’s willing to endanger his partner’s life by cheating on her with random strangers deserves to have his clock cleaned in divorce court, and I’m not going to be dissuaded from that opinion. I’m sure Mrs. Craig has already consulted both a gynecologist and a lawyer. At least, I sure hope so for her sake.
I also think we should pretty much just assume that the people who talk the loudest about “family values” and how wrong everyone else is are really speaking about themselves when they rant about “perversion.” I hope my fellow voters are getting a collective clue.
From the USA Today forums, by fooledonce: “In an all out effort to make the 2008 Re”pubic”an Convention a rousing success, Minnesota has pulled out all the stops to make attendees feel right at home. Improvements include 3 coats of Marine Varnish to all exposed surfaces in the mens rooms to facilitate easy clean up and KY dispensers will be installed with an operational pamphlet by Ted Haggard insuring its correct use. For those struggling with their sinful urges, a 24 hour hotline (1-800-INO-TGAY) has been set up. Also, the local archdiocese has erected temporary confessional booths that will be manned by priests, either for immediate forgiveness, or for a last minute date.”
Jokes aside, I hope people get it. Damn it all to hell, I hope they finally get it! It’s not the honest LGBTs that bear watching!
By the way, Timothy, your nausea warning wasn’t strong enough!!!! EWWW!!!!
Mr. Airhart,
Thanks for the references and I promise I will be more open-minded about someone being “bi”.
However,
I want to focus on a word in your reply: “predominantly” Just how do you measure that? If a guy is 50.99% attracted to a woman but has occasional (recreational) sex with his f***buddy … he is not gay? But if a guy is anywhere between 0 and 49.99% attracted to a woman and has the occasional male/male fling…is he gay? It’s foolish to suggest we have a way to measure attraction.
Let me cite a personal example: I have an acquaintance who, in his mind, is predominately attracted to women (so he says). He rationalizes he is not gay but his flings are far more passionate and demonstrative of someone in love than a casual slam-bam-thank-you-Dan encounter. I know the difference in the levels of love-making and he is far more advanced than I am. But, he insists he is “bi”.
Having male/male sex and then telling yourself you’re not gay and predominantly attracted to the opposite sex is delusional. But, then, who is to tell you differently and prove otherwise. Where is the proof of just how “predominantly” attracted to the opposite sex you are? I let my acquaintance stand by his “bi” tag…but really, I am thinking he is as gay as I am.
In the circle of people I associate with…if you touch another man’s genitalia for sexual pleasure it’s pretty much you will be tagged gay. Me = gay.
Mike,
You raise the possibility of Craig being predominately attracted to women, but there really is no evidence that he is at all attracted to women. He married rather late in life to a political aide after public questions about his sexuality and possible involvement in a page scandal involving males. His children are adopted. He has some sort of attraction to public sex, but none of his scandals or rumors involve sexual activity with women. As it stands, I think that it is far more likely that Craig has little to no sexual attraction to women.
And so, confusing feelings and all, Larry has discovered that sometimes it is best to pursue a valued life, rather than a perfect one???
What a difficult life we lead when first we practice to deceive.
Whatever. Next please!
Actually, of all places and contrary to what one’d normally “expect”, The Idaho Statesman did have an interesting — and informed — snippet.
Note ref. to “all but one were married” and that the Real Gays (c) are noted as up in arms about this type of behaviour.
There’s nothing wrong with anyone expressing an interest in you, but jeepers let’s have that left at a smile and some coy glances. Perhaps a “Hi”, maybe an introduction. And not in a toilet block. Eewh.
(Ya can guess we’d need lessons — and some desensitisation therapy — before we’re ever going to succeed as a closeted, anti-gay conservative with “homosexual tendencies”. The foot tapping brings that gawd-awful Riverdance into another light, doesn’t it now?)
Thanks for the Idaho Statesman link, grantdale. So much for New Yorkers being more informed about these things than most other Americans…
With regards to whether Larry Craig is gay or not gay based on his predominate attraction to women, I think that’s only part of the issue.
The bigger part of the issue is how the story is being presented. When the media refers to this case as a “gay sex” scandal or something else of the sort, or when they refer to Craig as a gay man, they are giving their audience the distinct impression that he is part of the gay community.
So, when the audience here’s this story on the news (especially the already anti-gay audience) they correlate these types of actions with openly gay males and the rest of the gay community, when really the story should be more closely correlated to seemingly straight, married men (if any correlation is drawn at all).
So, in this instance, I feel that the community that someone is involved with, or the sexuality that someone lives his daily life as, should be taken into consideration when assigning if someone is gay or straight–especially when the gay community is being implicitly blamed for the actions of a man (or men) that never were a part of that community to being with.
All of the sudden labeling Craig as gay when he’s been passing as straight all of these years isn’t fair or reasonable to open, honest gays that don’t condone this type of behavior.
OFF TOPIC:
Excuse me, on the same day Larry Craig was ‘outed’, this happened.
https://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=203&sid=ab5906080ffd472c03653d5c70eda31d
https://americansfortruth.com/news/unhappy-gays-assault-ex-gays-at-county-fair-in-virginia.html
Anyone want to update on this? Curious comments too from Pfox:
“Leaving homosexuality is like leaving a cult – many gay activists feel betrayed by ex-gays and hate anyone who supports self-determination when it comes to the ex-gay community. Although God gave us free will to choose our own lives, whether good or bad choices, gay activists would take free will away from us and force ex-gays back into the closet.
Gay activists fear factual information that PFOX makes available to teens. Gay activists have had a monopoly over our youth for so long that they resent any competing information and label anything contrary to their pro-gay ideology as “dangerous” to youth.
Gay activists do not support hate crimes or sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws if those laws include ex-gays. “Hate crimes” is another word for hate against ex-gays while protecting gays. Therefore, we must work to ensure that all sexual orientation laws at any level specifically include former homosexuals or be eliminated altogether as discriminatory.”
Unlike Box Turtle Bulletin and Good As You, which parroted PFOX’s allegations without offering any helpful facts about what really happened, XGW has been investigating PFOX’s allegations for several days. Expect a report shortly.
YukiChoe, why are you, too, parroting PFOX’s rubbish? If you disagree with it, explain why — point by point. Merely repeating someone’s hatred and strawman argumentation accomplishes nothing.
As you can see now, we’ve been digging into this one for a few days, but thanks for the timely segue!
Orginally I came to visit this website today to see what the thoughts were out there on the news of Larry Craig.
My comment though has nothing to do with him. I just wondered why Mike Airhart was sounding so negative when he seemingly laid in on YukiChoe’s comments on the PFOX story.
How can something be called “rubbish” if indeed all the facts are not in yet?
I hope I will be welcome here at this site. I was hesitant to even make a comment however I think it is time to start more conversation with those who might be open to talking with me.
You all take care and I hope to hear from many. Please be gentle. I have no hatred towards anyone.
So, now I probally might have some curious. I hope for some good dialogue on understanding this whole concept and need for an “ex-gay watch” site.
Again, take care.
Charlene
Charlene, welcome to the site.
I hope you will read our story about PFOX’s allegations about the Arlington County fair.
I believe we can all agree that violence and verbal harassment are wrong — dare I say, sinful.
Unfortunately, PFOX has refused to document its allegations, and both the police and the event organizers say they weren’t involved and know nothing about the alleged incident.
If PFOX is whipping up a scandal over the actions of one unruly fairgoer, and using that to smear “gay activists,” then PFOX would be committing a sin of deception, in my opinion.
I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts, Charlene.
Charlene, to find out why an “ex gay watch” site is needed, look no further than the testimonials of the good people at http://www.beyondexgay.com.
Thanks for the welcome. I look forward to some great conversations. I will read the two links you both sent on your replies.
I agree on the sin of deception/lying.
Goodnight for now
Charlene
Apologies Mike, I have commented on my blog a bit about this, and how even the ex-gay ministry in Malaysia caught hold of the story.
I am merely asserting members of the PFOX as having chronic deception syndrome (CDS).
Rest assured, I will comment on further moronic statements released by PFOX or any other CDS affirming ministries in the near future. Thanks. : )
YukiChoe, I’m sorry for my harshness. Thanks for commenting….
It is okay, Mike. I am more disappointed that Edmund Smith (RLM) who claimed to be not anti-gay (if I am not mistaken, he made the same claim here on XGW) would post PFOX’s bull on his site… Similar musings to Larry Craig, is it not? Hypocrapsy….
I’m not surprised so much by Larry Craig’s hypocrisy – that an anti-gay should be exposed as a closet case or a hypocrite is nothing new – but that this kind of police baiting of gay men still goes on in the US. The UK quit wasting police resources on this kind of thing years ago.
I’m surprised that there are still any men left in the U.S. who seek sex in restrooms.
I realize there are differences in the sexual drive of men in general as compared with women, but do you suppose we wouldn’t see at lease some of this between heterosexual couples if restrooms were unisex? Are there countries with unisex public restrooms? I wonder if there is any documentation of such behavior.
Actually, since the Craig story broke, people have told me of a few instances of heterosexual couples having sex in men’s rooms, and I’ve heard before of couples having sex in airplane and gas-station lavatories. Ick.
Of course, heterosexual couples are known to have sex in all sorts of less-than-savory unisex locales. Alleys, soccer fields, public stairwells, schools….
At Slate.com, Christopher Hitchens asks why some men (mostly closeted married men) still seek same-gender sex in restrooms.
His hypothesis: Some of the loudest moralizers want their adultery to be dangerous. They want to face the risk of being caught.
Perhaps people like Craig, and some ex-gay activists, also want all other same-sex-attracted people to face the same dangers and the same depersonalization of sex, rather than enjoy sexuality as an act of mutual sharing within a loving relationship.
Hey guys, Bishop Carlton Pearson has published his opinion on Larry Craig’s actions and denial on his website and Orato, the first person citizen website. Check it out – it’s quite a breath of fresh air, especially coming from a bishop! Here it is: The Shame And Sham Of Hypocrisy: The Case Of Sen. Larry E. Craig
There is a double standard for straight and same sex couples when is comes to having sex in public. It is not unusual for a M/F couple to be warned or told to just move to a more appropriate location. Also it isn’t News if a straight couple gets caught having sex in public. There aren’t Nationwide stories about this.
I live close to a 1-8 grade school , and a M/F couple was having sex in the day , in an open visable area next to the school and were just warned to cease. A Co-worker told me he and his girlfriend were told to leave a Mall parking lot (daytime ) , and find a more appropriate place for sex. Another Co-worker said his wife didn’t like a couple , because they had sex behind a couch while they were over for a party. I would imagine that most people at that party knew about this… or noticed something ?
I would imagine most people have heard of a Lover’s Lane, or Makeout point. But Police do not generally go out of their way to prosecute M/F couples, and it just isn’t News… But if you really think about it , these are places that Public Sex might occur.