Yesterday, I said that Larry Craig should resign from the Senate after pleading guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct for soliciting sex in a men's bathroom. I say that because Republicans don't need scum like Craig on our side of the aisle. There are plenty of Democrats who only concern is how one votes, not how one behaves (Ted Kennedy, anyone?).
But now comes the Shakespeare's Sister defense, which says that soliciting anonymous sex in airport bathrooms where minors and others might be just trying to do their own business is perfectly acceptable. No, really! Jeff Fecke actually questions why state money is being spent putting undercover cops in the restrooms.
Why indeed? Craig probably was cruising for anonymous sex -- I mean, none of us are buying the "wide stance" defense. But so what if he was?
Now, we can all generally agree that a restroom is not an ideal place for people to be having sex. But the fact is that all Craig is really guilty of is signaling quietly that he was interested in engaging in sexual activity. Why in God's name is that a crime?
If anyone -- male or female or intersex, straight or gay or bisexual -- comes up to me tomorrow and offers to have anonymous sex with me, I won't be offended. Oh, I'll almost certainly turn them down regardless; I generally am not a fan of anonymous sex. And if you're male, your odds are significantly lower. Nothing personal, I'm just a fan of an XX genotype.
But I won't be offended by it. Nonplussed? Possibly. Flattered? Probably. Offended? Why? I don't have to have sex just because it's offered.
And therein lies the rub. Had Larry Craig propositioned me in a Humphrey Terminal bathroom, I would probably have missed the sign. Had I somehow caught it, I would have politely turned him down. Had somebody suggested what he just did was lewd, I would have laughed, because you shouldn't get arrested just for asking someone on a date, even if that date involves sex.
Look, if Craig had been arrested for public nudity or having sex in a bathroom stall, I could understand this better. If he'd been arrested for soliciting a prostitute, I'd be all in favor of him getting nailed. But as near as I can tell, he's guilty of subtly asking another adult to have consensual sex. I won't weep for Craig -- he's helped build the bizarre system that has now destroyed his political future. But I won't gloat over this, either, because the ultimate message of this arrest is that the desire to engage in sexual activities with someone of the same sex is in and of itself offensive, and lewd, and criminal. And that's a rather sobering and disturbing thought.
It's quite a messed up view of the world that soliciting sex in a public bathroom is "just asking someone on a date," imo. I mean, when I was single, I had lots of dates, but none of them started with the guy asking for sex. We didn't really consider strange men coming up to us and wanting sex to be a "date." Maybe Fecke just has a different definition of date from the rest of the world.
But Fecke does display the typical Democrat stance where sex is concerned. Hey, want to ask for sex in a public place? That's OK with me! Democrats don't care about whether such behavior is appropriate, just as long as both people are consenting. And really, I'm surprised that Fecke draws the line at actually having sex in the bathroom stall or paying for it. What's wrong with doing it in the stall or paying somebody if they are both consenting? I mean, why stop with just propositioning someone? Obviously, the complaints from other people at the airport aren't enough reason, in Fecke's opinion, for the state to use taxpayer money to stop that behavior. Nope, just let the guys ask each other for sex right there in the same bathroom with your nine-year-old son. That's a great lesson for him!