Your stance on a wide stance.

[Guest Gym Class Fallout]

Please respond.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I ironically make jokes about gays/blacks/etc. Only when I'm with my straight, white friends though. I am the model of the enlightened liberal male.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I kind of missed this whole story and, subsequently, its joke possibilities.

[Slayer 0]

SECTION 9: HOW TO TELL IF A TOPIC WILL BE HACK BEFORE IT IS

 

Any news story which allows a hack comic to cover a controversial subject by saying "hey, I just saw this on the news..." will be done to death within two weeks.

 

Look out for any news story dealing with genitalia, gruesome murder, bodily mutilation or any other taboo subject.

 

A good gauge of how soon a topic will be hack is to watch Leno, Letterman and Conan's monologues the day after the story breaks. If one of them does a bit about it, the shelf-life is about two weeks. If two of them cover it, give it one week. If all three of them cover the story, it's already hack.

[snuffbox 0]

Is the point here that everyone else is as big a hypocrite as Larry Craig?

[Guest benoitwasmurdered]

Yes and Actively For.

[Timmy8271 0]

Of course I make jokes but I offend everyone equally.

[Guest Gym Class Fallout]

Is the point here that everyone else is as big a hypocrite as Larry Craig?

I'm not really trying to make a point, because I don't know the answer. It's pretty much as legitimate of a survey on my part as possible, given the circumstances. However, from looking around elsewhere, like "The Blogosphere," it seems like a lot of people feel that this guy has forfeited his right to be treated with respect as regards his sexual preference because of his party affiliation and his anti-gay voting record. Now this may or may not be true, I don't know the rules of gay, but if you're sensitive and enlightened, and committed to eradicating homophobia in America, how do you have it in you to make fun of the toe-tapping or what have you? I don't think it's out of line to presuppose that there are a few liberals whose commitment to equality is a bit superficial.

[snuffbox 0]

While Craig's hypocrisy is worse than normal in that he was denying human rights to people just like himself, he still remians an actual human being. On the other hand everybody (both on the left & the right) that just heaped their vitriol and hate on the guy are being just as awful. I had naively hoped this might improve the ridiculous mindsets on the right but they only went farther away from actual small govt conservatism.

 

It was an eerie repeat of the Walter Jenkins deal in 1964. When he was caught being gay in public LBJ basically threw him out with the trash...fortunately for Jenkins, Lady Bird had enough class to make up for her husband's lack and helped his fallen aide out. Also, Barry Goldwater refused to use the story in his campaign.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, I don't see what people trying to have anonymous sex in a public bathroom has to do with gay rights, either way.

[snuffbox 0]

Craig was adamently opposed to gay people having rights/Larry Craig is gay. That's the thing.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, yes, if so then he is a hypocrite, no doubt about it.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I didn't even remember who Larry Craig was until I saw what people were saying in this thread. I would have probably made jokes about him if I had followed the story any. But as it stands, no, and actively for

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No and actively for.

 

I have used this incident as well as David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Guiliani, Mark Foley, John McCain, etc. to point out the hypocrisy of the Republican Party attempting to portray itself as the party of traditional moral values.

 

I also, like I3K, don't see the connection between gay rights and anonymous sex in public bathrooms.

[2GOLD 0]

 

I didn't make any jokes because I still don't know if I know who he is. Seems like a waste of jokes if I have no idea who I am talking about. I know he's a politician and I know he was against gay rights but other than that, I don't know why I should waste my time joking about him.

[snuffbox 0]

Craig was adamently opposed to gay people having rights/Larry Craig is gay. That's the thing.

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Craig was adamently opposed to gay people having rights/Larry Craig is gay. That's the thing.

If he is, then he's a liar too because he said he's not.

 

and he's whatever it is you call it when a gay man gets married to a woman..

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

No and for.

 

That being said I think there is a definite line that can be drawn between judgment of how one jokes and how one legislates. I'm sorry, but I have doubts about my hypocrisy should I make an off color remark if I am still for all people having the same rights regardless of their sexual preference. I am confident knowing that not every gay person or liberal is so thinned skinned that they can't come "play our reindeer games" and have fun with our differences.

 

[ZGangsta 0]

I think one can be 'committed to eradicating homophobia in America' and still make fun of a guy for trolling for sex in an airport bathroom. I also don't see a connection there.

 

But yeah, the Republican party publicly shredding this guy while doing nothing about David Vitter is pretty expected of those idiots.

[Guest Gym Class Fallout]

But the reason that whole bathroom culture exists is because homosexuality isn't fully accepted in America. If you make jokes about it, you're part of the problem.

[Ripper 0]

Thats not true. Thats like saying prostitution exist because sex between men and women isn't fully accepted.

 

Random bathroom sex occurs because someone wants to get off with annoymous strangers. Most people join a swingers club for such activities. I feel nothing for someone that decides a public bathroom is the best place to fulfill those fantasies.

[treble 0]

I just like the term 'wide stance'.

[Guest Gym Class Fallout]

I've been led to believe that the bathroom scene is a consequence of homosexuality being shunned. It's not quite the same as prostitution, no.

[Richard 0]

So which of you is actively against?

 

 

If no one answers, I'll just assume it's Milky.

[snuffbox 0]

I agree with Czech's assessment. The people using the bathroom technique are trying to keep it undercover for a reason. If homosexuality wasn't so despised by certain people, the felt need to keep one's sexuality a deep secret wouldn't be necessary. Which leaves the saddest element of this story as a homosexual man was simultaneously doing all he could to deny rights to people just like himself & trolling for underground sex with other men.

 

While I did hope, and continue to hope, that something like this would drive the GOP towards personal freedom and away from big govt nanny-stateism, it obviously is not happening as yet. And the fact that Craig's party (minus Arlen Specter) turned on him so brutally while giving Vitter (who not only commited multiple crimes by hiring prostitutes, but made some of his phone calls on Federal property as a sitting Congressman) is really lame, and sadly expected. That Craig & Vitter were both among the biggest impeach-Clinton guys only adds to the hypocrisy.

[NoCalMike 0]

The hypocrisy factor is a big issue, but I think another issue was that the conservatives and even the media in some aspects seem to be turning it into a gay issue. Say he does the same thing, but with a woman. How much EASIER does that now make it for him to just make a fake apology, "turn to jesus" and everyone comes to his aid and claims he is a changed man.

 

Quite frankly, I can give a shit that he wants to have sex with another man, that is his personal business. It is more of a reflection on society that he felt the need to sneak around and do it in a men's restroom.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

No and Actively For. But that's because I didn't care enough to joke about it.

 

I think it's a HUUUUUGE stretch though to assume that making fun of gays is responsible for this "bathroom culture". You're trying to prove a point here by being extremely sensitive on behalf of a group of people that you really are not qualified to represent, unless there's something I don't know. You're also being insulting towards gays by assuming that they aren't allowed to have their own set of values that would criticize this sort of behaviour. A lot of people criticize through the use of humour, so I'm sure quite a few people laughing at this guy were gay. I know of gay people that are actually downright prudish, while I really wouldn't criticize someone for having a bathroom quickie. Not every liberal or homosexual is like the free-thinking dope that lives across from you in your dorm, I learned this by branching out (thankfully).

 

My main beef with the guy is not what he did but the fact that he has said what he has said, about homosexuals and specifically the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, only to be living this kind of life on the side. It's hypocritical, sad and extremely pathetic. This man is a coward, plain and simple.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I think I made a few jokes about this guy, but I can't remember.

 

Ambivalent

[Ripper 0]

I agree with Czech's assessment. The people using the bathroom technique are trying to keep it undercover for a reason. If homosexuality wasn't so despised by certain people, the felt need to keep one's sexuality a deep secret wouldn't be necessary. Which leaves the saddest element of this story as a homosexual man was simultaneously doing all he could to deny rights to people just like himself & trolling for underground sex with other men.

 

No, i am sorry, that is bullshit.

 

There are married guys that go to a prostitute because she gives better head than his wife. He isn't doing this because good head is despised by certain people. He wants some good head. Plenty of undercover gays get by just fine without having anonymous sex in public restrooms.

 

Plus, I would argue that having sex with whoever the fuck stamps their foot in a restroom isn't exactly the best method to keeping it a secret.

 

And if there was a known place where women would randomly have sex with guys if they stamp their feet, trust me, there would be no shortage of people lining up to go take a piss in that bathroom. Or if there were glory holes where it was a certainty that the there was a woman on the other end, straight men would be there all the time.

 

He was fucking in bathrooms because he liked the thrill of it and thats it. He is a senator for christ sake. he could find him one fuck boy on the side like the other dozens of senators that want gay sex.

 

His sexual perversions are not a reflection of society or homosexuality. Its is a reflection of his perversions.

 

People always want to find a deeper meaning behind somethings, when honestly the reasoning is usually the most simplistic explaination. No, some guy didn't cheat on his wife because he has a low self esteem and needs to validate himself, he cheated because there was some more pussy there. Might he have self esteem issues? Yeah. Does he want to validate himself? Maybe. Is that what got his dick hard and inserted into another vagina? No. The want of pussy did that.

 

Same with this guy. He isn't fucking in bathrooms because of how society shuns homosexuals. Now, might he be hiding his sexual orientation because of how society views homosexuality? Yes. Did that erect his penis and get it inserted into another mans oriface? No it didn't. His want for anonymous sex is what did that.

 

 

 

I mean christ, everytime they do one of those bathroom raids, openly gay men are there. So they obviously aren't trying to hide a damn thing. They just wanted some anonymous sex.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

So which of you is actively against?

 

 

If no one answers, I'll just assume it's Milky.

 

Nope, guess again.

 

 

 

 

"IT WAS ME RICHARD, IT WAS ME ALL ALONG!"