wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] hjs from 11211 August 29, 2007 - 10:56AM

  the REAL question is why does the republican party attact so many homosexuals

  
  
• [2] Anne from Redding, CT August 29, 2007 - 10:57AM

  If the bathroom in the airport is indeed a "Hot Spot" for gay sex, as a mother of two sons I would want to have it stopped.

  
  
• [3] Alan Bitwith from Bronx August 29, 2007 - 10:57AM

  This is nothing new to gay men. It still goes on. In Manhattan check out Macy's bathroom at Herald's Square or Port Authority upstairs bathroom..

  
  
• [4] Emily from Brooklyn August 29, 2007 - 10:57AM

  Isn't part of the point that anonymous encounters are anonymous, hence "safer" to engage in for a high profile public official?

  Emily

  
  
• [5] anon August 29, 2007 - 10:58AM

  He didn't "just tap his foot" he reportedly moved it under the wall into the next stall, something that will get anyone's attention. As a gay man, I've seen this stuff go on a million times and I'm not at all interested in stuff like this so it doesn't surprise me that someone into this would do this.

  
  
• [6] mark c from manhattan August 29, 2007 - 11:00AM

  Brian, i am amazed this is even a discussion, tea-rooming or cottaging (as it called in the UK) its so old school!

  
  
• [7] Erin from Brooklyn August 29, 2007 - 11:01AM

  I don't understand what he did that's illegal...if men and women shared bathrooms this kind of solicitation would be normal and something women would have to endure daily!

  
  
• [8] Robert from Montclair, NJ August 29, 2007 - 11:37AM

  What could be illegal, is, of course, attempting to bribe an officer. The "What to you think of this?" comment as he showed the officer his business card, as reported in the police report, could easily lead to such an offer. So far as I know, such an offer was not reported.

  
  
• [9] Al from Lisbon August 29, 2007 - 11:47AM

  Indeed solicitation "per se" should be legal, in its heterosexual and homosexual "form"! A simple "no" will end the problem.

  I agree with Erin's comment on "shared bathrooms", as for Mark C, it should be noted that there's merit in this discussion because considering the act described as a crime is symptomatic of homophobic policy. At the very least, the norm "helps" indirect discrimination.

  As to the "real question" as posted by hjs, why should the discussion "big government vs. small government" be above gay people?

  
  
• [10] TM August 29, 2007 - 12:03PM

  An irony of this situation is that it makes the closeted guy most likely to be busted and publicly humiliated.

  
  
• [11] Scrivner from New York August 29, 2007 - 02:31PM

  This seems to be part of a trend: It appears that those members of the conservative right who lobby most stridently against gay rights are damning publically what they most loath privately in themselves.

  My primary concern--apart from Anne's comment about her fear for her two boys, reflecting a spurious predatory/pedophilic intent on the part of gay men--is that, in scratching his libidinal itch, Mr. Craig may be bringing home to his wife more than mere guilt. The unfortunate price for anonymous public sex is the increased likelihood of transmission of known and unknown pathogens.

  I believe Mr. Craig would be doing himself and his family a favor by making his sexual preferences clear--particularly to himself, since homosexual denial is frequent in public office--and acting on them in a more responsible manner.

  
  
• [12] Harry from Brooklyn August 29, 2007 - 11:12PM

  As a gay man almost exactly as old as Senator Craig, I can understand why he could convince himself that he was not gay, just a regular guy who liked sex with other men. The social pressures when he and I came of age were enormous. To make matters worse, he began his political career when a nationally publicized call-boy scandal was rocking the Idaho legislature. It's sad that he was forced to live a lie, and to seek sex only in tawdry circumstances.