> I have never understood the right not to be
> "disturbed" by the behavior of others. It is
> like people want the world to be child-proofed
> for their peace of mind. They cannot abide
> witnessing anything that does not conform to
> their operating system: women should not wear
> the veil, it disturbs me. Women who do not
> wear the veil disturb me. Men should not wear
> their pants below their waists. Men should not
> wear floodwaters. Who the fuck cares? Society
> is awash in a sea of weak sisters who need to be
> presented with a continual stream of affirmation
> of their worldview. What happened to pluralism?
Amen to that. But this is not such a case: Look my first post in this thread and read the statutes Craig was charged with. Craig was accused of invading someone else's legitimate expectation of privacy in a public restroom stall, and I do not see much wrong with criminalizing such invasions.
What disturbs me about this whole affair is the way an otherwise legitimate law is being used to specifically target gay men. In many ways it is similar to the use of laws that provide harsher sentences for crack cocaine are used against black men. *This* ought to be what offends us; not the fact that the law exists b/c IMO it's pretty reasonable on its face.
> Yes, that is what we are talking about: whether or
> not a person can be charged with a crime for
> offending someone.
The answer in Minnesota is YES if the behavior is not constitutionally protected and provided that MN's statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Let's not mix up our is/ought distinctions here.
> Another unspoken part of the issue is straight men's
> uncomfortableness with being the object of sexual
> attention. If a man is cruised in a men's room and
> he is not interested that is all he has to stay. No
> need for indignancy. Just a polite "No thank you"
> and that is it. If the queer were to persist in his
> attentions, then that could be considered harrassment,
> but the initial approach is only disturbing if the
> object of desire is sexually uptight. His discomfiture
> deserves no more consideration than that of a racist
> who is upset if a black person takes a seat next to
> her on a bus.
I agree -- provided the dude being cruised isn't in a stall. The whole purpose of the stalls is to provide privacy while you're taking a shit. When you enter a stall your expectation of privacy increases substantially. The expectation is that you will be able to take a dump without being subjected to any intentional gazing or physical interference such as someone in an adjacent stall putting his hand in your stall. Straight people expect this. Queers expect this. We have laws established that protect this expectation.
> > Again, Craig was being accused of far more than merely
> "hitting on" the cop.
>
> What did he do beyond that? He was trying to find out if
> the cop was interested in a little tearoom joy. If proper
> etiquette had been followed, the cop would simply have
> indicated no interest and Craig would have moved on. But
> the cop was trying to enrap him.
According to the police report, Craig blatantly peered into the stall and put his hand under the divider. He didn't ask the cop if he wanted to fuck (that would have been Constitutionally protected), rather he engaged in behavior that reasonable people of all genders and sexual preferences in our culture would consider an invasion of their personal privacy.
> But a queer would not know if you were there for a poop
> or a suck without looking. If you are that needful of
> privacy, either avoid public men's rooms or hang a strip
> of toilet paper in the crack to indicate that you are
> there for shit and not sex. Is that so difficult?
What is so wrong with expecting others to respect your privacy while you're shitting in a public restroom stall? Why can't a dude who's cruising just wait for people to finish their business and then ask for a suck or make a gesture indicating that he's looking for a suck?
> So if something has been called a crime just go along with it?
No one is saying that. You said Craig didn't commit a crime. I say he did because MN law says so. I'm nitpicking this point because I think it's important that we realize something can be lawful and still wrong. By claiming that something must be right to be lawful, one clouds the role legal practices play in reinforcing a grossly unjust social order.
> > The question of whether the activity in question *should* be
> crime is a different one.
>
> Agreed, and if it should not be a crime it should be campaigned
> against with vigor.
...Provided there are not more important things to be campaigning against. Repealing laws that protect traditional ideas about what constitutes a criminal breach of personal privacy in bathroom stalls is really far down on my list, and it should be down on yours too.
> > *But*, I think most Americans would be offended by the type of
> behavior described in the Craig arrest report regardless of the
> gender of the person engaging in such behavior.
>
> I disagree. If bathrooms were not segregated by sex, and a woman
> peeped a straight man's stall, he could be in the middle of the
> greatest, most sacred dump of his life, and he would flirt with
> her.
Not me: I would be embarrassed, humiliated and annoyed. In fact, it would probably be worse if I was sexually attracted to the person looking at me. Call it bodily insecurity or whatever. I like to poop by myself. I bet most American queers do too.
> > Rightly or wrongly, we are conditioned to strongly prefer to
> shit undisturbed.
>
> Then what is needed is a less sexually uptight citizenry and not
> the criminalization of innocent sexual behavior.
Activity which invades others' legitimate expectation of privacy is not innocent. In fact, I don't see much of a distinction between peering into someone's bathroom stall and putting a camera in his bathroom at home.
-WD