Craig still a punchline

What prompted Minneapolis airport police to initiate the sting designed to decrease the number of men soliciting sex in a restroom that ensnared Senator Larry Craig?  Well, the prosecutor answers that in a brief asking the judge to throw out the ACLU's brief supporting Senator Craig, as reported by the Idaho Statesman:

The airport takes privacy in its restrooms seriously, according to the brief. Police started their undercover sting operation "on the heels of an incident in which a private citizen was seated in the stall, the individual next to him invaded the space of the adjacent stall and looked up the stall divider. The victim was so upset he waited for the defendant to come out of his stall and took him to a security checkpoint to call the police."

So much for this being a victimless crime.

This comes as Senator Craig says he's awaiting the results the Sep. 26 hearing on the petition to withdraw his guilty plea before making a final decision on resignation.  Meanwhile he's back in Washington where he remains a punchline even for his colleagues.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was trying to impress upon reporters Thursday to what lengths he had gone to try to win enough Republican votes to pass an amendment mandating longer troop rest times between Iraq deployments. The amendment had fallen short.

"I spent three weeks trying, I called and spoke to Republican senators -- I even called Larry Craig, OK?" Reid laughed.

How is this effectively representing the interests of Idaho?

Comments

[Bubblehead]

Sorry, but I guess I still don't see how the anecdote the MN prosecutor's office provided makes Sen. Craig's crime any less victimless. Just because some ultra-sensitive, probably homophobic, person took offense to someone looking at them, and instead of a quick "do you mind?" that 99% of other people would throw at someone, waited around and hauled the starer off to security, doesn't make what Senator Craig did any worse in my mind. The fact remains that he pled (pleaded?) guilty to a crime, and attempted to hide said fact from his constituents and family, leaving himself open to blackmail. For that reason, and no other, Sen. Craig should resign -- not because of some anecdotal whiner in some Minneapolis bathroom.

[MountainGoat]

So now everyone who expects a little privacy in the restroom is a whiner, ultra-sensitive and probably homophobic?

[Bubblehead]

No, someone who doesn't just say "Do you mind?" or "Can I help you?" with a sarcastic tone, and tries to make a criminal case out of it, is a whiner. IMHO. There are ways to deal with annoying people that don't require violence or getting the police involved as an initial step. An adult making passes at another adult shouldn't be considered criminal behavior, as long as they stop when they're told "no". Maybe ill-social behavior, but not criminal.

[MountainGoat]

Please Bubblehead, men have been using those same arguments to justify sexual harassment against women for years. There are certain places where women shouldn't have to endure unwanted sexual advances; why should it be any different for men in a restroom.

I don't have a problem with two men, anonymous or otherwise, deciding to get it on but when the solicitation involves invading the privacy of an unwilling participant, then I do.

To look at it another way, what if a male was peering into the restroom stall of a female, either through the crack in the door or over the divider? Would that make a difference?

On a different note, what I really thought was hilarious was the LTE in the Statesman the other day that said something along the lines that "Craig should have had the decency to just pay someone to satisfy his urge." Yeah, because everyone knows that paying for sex is way more dignified than asking (through footsie or otherwise) for it. Maybe it's just me but that struck me as odd.

[Bubblehead]

Sorry, but I don't buy that the mere act of looking at a person who turns out to be unwilling constitutes harassment, unless the looker is able to read the lookee's mind beforehand; it's when the looking continues after they've said "no" that it becomes a problem. Otherwise, how are strangers ever going to meet and eventually fall in love unless one can look at the other in the first place? It would make difference if the man was in a woman's restroom, where he's not supposed to be. If both chose to use a unisex restroom, I don't think such conduct would be criminal until after the first "no".

And you'd be surprised the amount of sexual content that normally gets heard in the standard men's restroom, including accusations of "meatgazing".

[MountainGoat]

Just two points:

1) Very strange to equate meeting and falling in love with staring at someone who's seated on the crapper.

2) Sooooo glad that I don't have to endure the gauntlet of the men's room. I'll take the ladies room any day where most of us use it for its intended purpose, hit the desired receptacle and wash our hands...and where a friendly smile is just that.

[Bubblehead]

Maybe some people have different ways of falling in love with people. Aren't progressives supposed to be accepting of most lifestyle choices? :-)

The worst sexual abuse in men's rooms occurs when someone has to use the "kiddy" urinal. Their manhood is frequently questioned, and unless they say something on the order of "it's a nice change of pace; the water's still cold, just not as deep" they get mocked and belittled unmercifully. It's not pretty.