The Dallas Morning News reports that vice officers made four arrests on Monday and Tuesday in the bathrooms of Macy’s and Dillard’s at NorthPark Center. Now I’m no attorney, and I’m not trying to justify the suspects’ behavior, but some of these arrests would appear to border on entrapment. For example:
Tuesday afternoon, police were back inside Macy’s. Police say during one exchange, a 28-year-old man put his cell phone in the doorway of a bathroom stall so the officer could read it.
“Meet me in the Dillard’s restroom first floor,” said a message on the phone’s screen.
The officer nodded, and they walked to the Dillard’s bathroom. Police say the man went to the last stall, unzipped his blue jeans and pulled them below his waist. While facing the officer, who stood outside the stall, the man began masturbating, police say.
UPDATE: Since I’m under attack about this in the comments below, allow me to clarify. Again, I’m not defending the suspects’ behavior, nor am I suggesting that what they did was not ultimately illegal. I’m merely questioning, from a civil liberties standpoint, the tactics used by police to arrest these men. I understand the argument that children use those restrooms, just as some argued that the Patriot Act was justified because of 9/11. I also understand that the LGBT community is probably NEVER going to win here from a PR standpoint, but that doesn’t change my beliefs about what I believe should be strict limits on government power and intrusion. I also believe Instant Tea is an appropriate place to have a civil discussion about this issue, so by all means keep it coming (except for you, Dante).
Sorry, John, but from that example you quoted here, I don’t sense “entrapment” on the part of the cops. Now had the cop pulled his pants down or made a gesture toward him, then it would be a different take on the matter.
As a gay man, I believe I am entitiled to EQUAL Rights. I am not entitled to SPECIAL rights. Public sex is against the law…for everyone. I’m not a prude by any means, but it pisses me off when gay advocates assume that anytime gays are arrested for things like this, it’s entrapment or harrasement. The guy told the cop to meet him in a public bathroom, then dropped his pants and started whacking. Where’s the entrapment?? Sorry, I don’t think I have a right to have sex in public simply because I’m gay and it’s part of our “culture”. If I’m caught doing such things in public, I deserve to be carted off to jail like anyone else. Debating things like this only weakens our fight for true equality.
This is no different than the sting operations that Vice runs at White Rock Lake and other parks. The law is pretty simple and to the point on this. If you engage in sexual activity in a public place and get caught, you WILL be arrested and you WILL have a record, PERIOD. I don’t buy the whole “entrapment” thing, because if they hadn’t been doing anything wrong in the first place, we wouldn’t even be discussing it! Now these men face having their mugshots posted on the Dallas Police website for the next YEAR where anybody can see it. I’m sorry, but the “thrill” of getting some in a public place is just NOT worth it!
What a bunch of dumbasses! I’m sorry. If you are dumb enough to solicit sex in a public bathroom outside of the bar scene, you get what you deserve. I also agree with some of the comments on the DMN. Children go into these bathrooms and we don’t need to have these kinda pervs around them.
Ever since Lawrence v. Texas struck down the TX Sodomy law in 2003, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Arlington police have been allegedly decoying gay men at restrooms and public parks. It has been a way to strike back at LGBT people for their supposed “immorality.” I am with John here. This smells of entrapment. The problem is that none of the targets of police entrapment have yet been willing to face the public shame of challenging these stings in court. Maybe Macy’s, Dillards, and NorthPark don’t want or need LGBT shoppers and money, if they are going to condone stings in mall toilets.
Again, I’m not trying to defend the suspects’ behavior, or argue that what they did was not ultimately illegal. I’m just questioning the police tactics from a legal standpoint, especially in the case involving the cell phone.
Chip, the Web site where the names and photos are posted is a separate issue, and there are questions about that, too. I addressed some of them in this story a few years ago:
https://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/jul/27/dallas-pollice-department-claims-web-site-deters-c/
I am going to approach this from a very different direction. I agree what these men did was illegal. The question is, “Why is it illegal?”
Humans are the only animal species that doesn’t have public sex. No other species hides this very natural part of their lives. The reason humans hide this is because of shame created by narrow minded religious beliefs. The results is a very crazy system in which we teach that sex is something to be feared and hidden, instead of something to be celebrated as a natural part of being alive. This religious restrictions has been turned into a law. The law is used to oppress people’s natural desires and inclinations. So religion is uses civil law to oppress actions that it deems unacceptable. Interestingly enough this sounds very similar to the approach that society has taken, until recently, toward gay male sodomy sex.
I am not advocating having public sex, although I don’t think it would be the downfall of civilization (sound familiar). But I don’t agree that this is a perversion. In fact I would go as far as to say that this is quite natural in the animal world so is probably quite natural to the human species. The question of how people judge the way people express love (sexual desire) differently is the center of the gay rights movement. The celebration of and capturing of sexual freedom is the central theme of what our predecessors were fighting for.
Also, it is not like only gay men have “public sex” or solicit sex in public places. Heterosexual couples also do this. Maybe not (or maybe so if some movies scenes are to be believed) in bathrooms, but in many other places. I agree with Steve, that this is a part of an overall way to continue to oppress people through embarrassment and intimidation.
Finally I really want to get away from the word perversion. Gay male sex is not a perversion. Public sex is not a perversion (except by religious standards). Nudity is not a perversion. Seeking sexual partners is not a perversion. These are all taught to be shameful, but are not naturally shameful. If these men were soliciting sex with minors (and that is NOT the case here it seems) I would have a problem, because the youth are not consenting adults. But sexual desire and expression that is between two consenting adults may be deemed by society as illegal, but is not a perversion, at least in my book.
It is this kind of thinking that has pretty much ruined the lives of millions of young men and women.
John wright shoud be ashamed of his blog!
B.S. to suggesting entrapment! My partner & I left 15 year old relationships due to “partners” involved in this type of “innocent” behavior.
The dudes arrested deserved it!
Absolutely floored a DV news writer would publish this “opinion” of possible entrapment. BS!
Marvin-
Some of us could argue, from a religious perspective, that PRIVATE sex is a perversion of what it means to be human or “normal.”
I’m all for abolishing the “perversion” word, no matter where/when it’s being applied.
Tisha, so it’s ok to solicit sex in a public restroom, so long as it is in the bar scene? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I’m an old fart, from the old school. I always loved anonymous public sex, back in my day, the 70’s and 80’s. I think it was part of the thrill of getting away with something, and the fact that I really didn’t want to talk to someone or get to know them, just a quick sexual encounter. The bath houses were one of my favorite places, but I will admit that I had plenty of sex in public restrooms over a 20 year period all over the world. I have to admit, that I was once arrested for having sex in a public park when I was 17 years old. That did not stop me. Back in 1972, that’s just the way things were. We didn’t have a lot of bars to meet people in. Restrooms, parks and cruise routes was were we met. It was a fun and exciting time. We didn’t have to worry about getting the bug like the youngsters today. Crab was worse I ever got, I swear for a fact that I had sex with over 5,000 men in my day. Back then we did not have to worry about cell phones getting our picture snapped either. But the culture is much more open nowadays and it really is too dangerous to have public sex now days. But one thing that bothers me is that straight people do it all the time in public restrooms. Like Sex In The City character Samantha. Sex in a restroom at a restaurant or art gallery or car is not a problem, as long as you are straight. It’s always double standards. There’s my two cents.
We’ve also only heard one side of the story. Police say the 28 year old man typed a note in his cell phone. Just a few weeks ago, police filed a report that they were groped at the Rainbow Lounge, although all witnesses have sworn that never happened. There are always two sides to a story. Like John, I’m against public sex but I’m also against entrapment and abuse of power. Maybe I’m just HOPING something else happened because the entire gay community is painted poorly when these stories arise.
The behavior described is of course illegal, and does not, based on the description, seem to be a case of entrapment (Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992) established that entrapment entails that evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant was obtained by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed).
The question at hand is the equitable application of the law. Quasi-public sex (I use the term to describe sex in a publicly accessible venue which is not intended to be viewed by the public) is almost a comedy cliché for straight people: Every other sitcom has had its main love interests have sex in a broom closet, only to be caught by somebody else for comedic results, teen-agers going to “make-out point” is a cultural touchstone, as wholesome as mom and apple pie.
It’s almost unheard of for straight people to get arrested for quasi-public sex. I do not believe this is because they don’t engage in it (as clearly our culture condones such behavior), but rather, that the hetro-normative bias of law enforcement makes it more likely that straight people are given a warning and sent home.
I don’t have a problem with people being arrested for breaking a law that seems reasonably designed to protect people’s right to not see other’s engaged in sex. I do have a problem with that law being selectively enforced.
North Park has been open for a half-century and for 50 years vice squad officers have been arresting gay men for solicitation and public lewdness in the restrooms there. It’s infamous for that. At what point do people finally get the message. If you cruise or engage in any sort of sexual activity in a public restroom, you run a really high risk of getting arrested. It’s been going on for decades and people have complained about entrapment for decades to no avail. The bottom line is that the vice squad will always be there, and they will always be making arrests. Don’t use a public restroom for any other reason than the obvious purpose. Don’t let anyone entrap you.
I don’t buy the the entrapment theory at all. The subject put a message on his cell phone and invited the officer to meet him for sex in a public place. Stupid. Wrong. He is suffering the consequences.
Channel 5 NBC news showed the story and showed the guys pics.
Guy raises another issue here: standards in the media for reporting these arrests. As a general rule, most newspapers wouldn’t identify average citizens who are charged with misdemeanors. But some newspapers have traditionally made exceptions for things like prostitution in an apparent effort to shame the offenders. I know that the Dallas police sent out a media alert listing the names of the suspects today, so clearly they’re pushing to have them publicly identified (which is evidenced by their own Web site). But I chose not to post the names here on Instant Tea, even though I’m sure there would be interest from the LGBT community.
@Guy. I personally would love to get my jollies off in public but you know what it’s illegal. So, based on that, where would I most likely get busted? In the bathroom in a dark busy bar where the staff is too busy tossing drunks and unruly people out or an uppity mall with high security in the middle of the day? If you gonna do something illegal, PLEASE use some common sense. That’s all I was saying.
Here’s another thing I’m gonna throw out and I’m sure I’m gonna get some raised eyebrows about this. How do we know that these guys were even gay? Of course, you want to assume that they are since they’re soliciting another male. How do we know this wasn’t some straight guy trying to lure another man in the bathroom then beat the shit out of him?
I just think that automatically associating this event with the stereotypical behavior of gay men (i.e. risky sex practicies) is a dangerous assumption to make.
As a parent of two young boys – boys who ALWAYS have to go to the bathroom when we go to the mall – I have absolutely no problem with cops arresting people for having sex in public bathrooms. I don’t want my kids walking in on people screwing in a bathroom, and I sure as hell don’t want someone lurking in a public bathroom with the intent of harming my kids or any kids. And yes, one of my sons has been approached by a man in a mall bathroom.
I do not care what consenting adults do with each other in private. And I don’t think there is anything shameful in sex between consenting adults. And it isn’t a matter of “perversion.” And I am in no way implying that gay men are pedophiles.
But a public bathroom is not the place for sex. Get a room people.
I have mixed feelings about this. My main issue with this is that police officers could be using their time to solve much more serious crimes. I understand there are many aspects of law that we need to uphold. However, I think implementing a string at a mall is not as serious as other issues we face today in North Texas.
I just checked the Dallas Police Department’s Crime Statistics website in an attempt to look at statistics on indecent exposure arrests. It turns out those records are not made public without an open records request. Seems like that might be an interesting bit of in depth reporting for a certain free weekly to do.
I think that ALL children should be accompanied to any public restroom. One, no telling what they may see or who may approach them, but also to keep them from making a mess in there. Once their parents think they are old enough to go by theirselves, they should have a talk with them an warn them about people possibly approaching them and what to do. Because it does and always will happen.
No one seems to be talking about the real problem here: The guys who were arrested are likely sex addicts who need effective treatment rather than arrest and shame. The very fact that they allegedly solicited sex in a public restroom points to a sexual addiction. The sex addict will often engage in high-risk behavior (sex in public places, sex with a stranger) precisely because the risk heightens the experience. Unfortunately, our prisons and courts are filled with people who need serious help. Many of them could lead productive lives and contribute to society if we switched our focus from punishment to rehabilitation. Many people have done stupid, risky things, and the only thing separating them from a criminal record is luck.
A lots of guys just don’t use common sense. Several times I have gone out hiking and biking at several parks and to my surprise have seen guys walking totally nude when there are children and adults present on the trails. They deserve what they get! Dallas has two bathhouses. Go get it there!
Do these bitches have computers? I’m having cyber sex, and yes we are pretending we are in public but that’s not the point
Dante
Do you have a level of shame that John Wright should feel? Everyone knows that it is wrong to do any sort of monkey spanking in a public toilet. Everyone also knows that the vice squad is not ALWAYS honest. If the vice cop knew he was following someone to watch them perform an illegal act, then isn’t he responsible too if some child walked in? If a cop happens to see a car speeding, he doesn’t wait until the car has a wreck to issue him a ticket.
Also, aren’t many of the toilet cruisers men that are married and looking for a quick wank. It always amazes me that the most closeted men participate in the most risky behavior.
But back to the proper punishment for John Wright for having a different view than you. I plan on seeing him in the next couple of weeks and I will pull his pants down and spank his pretty white ass until he screams with shame. I will video tape it and send it to you.
Clearly not entrapment! If the accused had typed on his cell phone “let’s go rob a bank. Meet me at the first teller.” And when the officer got to the bank the accused had his six shooter out and was demanding money from the teller…….would it be entrapment? In some recently infamous words it’s simply a case of the accused acting “stupidly”.
Brian, I’m not suggesting that sexual addiction is an excuse for bad behavior, but that it provides a framework for understanding why people do what they do. I’m simply saying that punishment rarely leads to rehabilitation. In Texas, two convictions of indecent exposure will result in being labeled as a sex offender. Rather than stigmatize a person convicted of two misdemeanor offenses for the remainder of that person’s life, it seems better to treat the cause of the behavior in a rehabilitative program. I am already well aware of the fact that you have no faith, Brian, but your comment makes it seem as though you also have no heart.
For all of you trying to blame the Cops (playing the oppression card, again), like Steve Sprinkles,
ARE YOU CRAZY?
Bathrooms are not for sex. They have a different purpose. If this need to be enforced by the police, then it says something about the idiots looking for sex in a bathroom and NOTHING else.
And for Jon Garinn, playing the “sex addict” card, these guys need to respect other people and obey the law. Please don’t make excuses for bad behavior.
Oh, and will George Michael please comment….
Marlin-
Rape is also completely natural. It’s also something that animals do freely and frequently. It even has evolutionary advantages.
That doesn’t mean you have an argument in favor of rape on your hands.
Religion has done a lot of bad things, regarding sex and particularly gay sex. But we’ll be able to fight that religious-cultural influence better if we’re honest about it. And equating public sex with all gay sex is anything but helpful.
As others have mentioned, there are real reasons not to just pull it out and penetrate anywhere you feel like it. As Tammye said, children are a significant reason. But they aren’t the only one. Sex anywhere you choose is a real intrusion of space, and believe me, I don’t have an ounce of religion. I just don’t want to walk around and see 90% of the people out there naked, much less grunting and sweating and climaxing. Who’s with me?
Jon Garinn:
I have “faith” in my gay brothers and sisters, not some ancient, hateful dogma – religion.
It seems you are an apologist for both RELIGION and BAD BEHAVIOR. Twins, I guess.
Stay out of Church if you’re looking for EQUALITY.
Stay out of the Men’s Bathroom if you’re looking for sex.
It’s simple.
The guy ALLEGEDLY put a message on his cell phone … Police SAY he di d … Watch Episode 4 of “Hung” on HBO. Ray goes to a hotel room to have sex with a paying customer. She starts feeling guilty ’cause she’s married and decides she doesn’t want to do it. Then Ray pulls out his piece, and the woman changes her mind (because Ray is hung, hence the tite of the series). If Ray was a cop, that would clearly be entrapment because the woman otherwise had “changed her mind.” Until we see what the cop had, we don’t know whether the guy would have ALLEGEDLY invited him to meet him at Dillard’s. Show the cop’s “pistol!”
John Wright wrote, “I chose not to post the names here on Instant Tea, even though I’m sure there would be interest from the LGBT community.” Good for you! Otherwise, the DV would be no better than the cops.
Chance,
I did mention “consenting” adults. I don’t think rape is consenting. I would equate it with pedophilia that I did mention above as unacceptable based on this argument. So your argument doesn’t work. Sorry.
I didn’t equate public sex with all gay sex. I equate it with sex — gay or straight. I am not advocating it as I said above. I am saying that many of the arguments that we use to justify gay sex and that many would use to argue against it have been used by both sides in the debate about the legalization and acceptability of gay sex.
You can feel how you want to see acts of public sex and nudity. I myself am not saying I would be comfortable with it, as I said, I am not advocating it. But my ability, or yours, to lay our desires/rules on others, is the dangerous problem. As a society, we can decide that public sex is inappropriate. I am okay with that. But lets be sure we are doing for more than just some religious purpose. Let’s make our arguments — because I don’t like it. This is the argument used against public affection. Is it the puritan in us or is there a valid rational reason within the culture to stop an action.
I don’t know — I am just saying that it seems to me personally that we continue to let the religious rule control what society sees as right and wrong, instead of having a rational reasoning for choosing something. Humanity has the highest developed sense of self in the animal world. It is this that has allowed us to develop a social structure that far surpasses all other species. But the downside is that social structure is continually ruled by irrational rules based on strange ideas usually derived from a centralized power usually deriving power from a religious dogma.
If it could be proven that public sex is harmful to us as a society, then I say lets talk about outlawing it. If we can come up with studies that prove that a great percentage of people exposed to numerous acts of public sex have been harmed then I say lets discuss how we can control it. But I think the opposite is true. One of the largest businesses in the world is pornography. One of the reasons is that is it illicit and forbidden. Yet it is a form of public sex, just paid for. Because we have come to a point that we have restricted it in such a way something that is beautiful and natural (sexual conduct) has become something with a greater power than it should have in our lives. I am not saying the solution is the opposite. I don’t know. I just know that sometimes things are not as we want them to be or how we interpret them.
Think of all the power that the Kinsey report had. Now we look it as something ahead of its time, and the ideas that fought against it as antiquated. The sexual revolution is one that has many aspects that we are still discovering. Where it will lead, I don’t know. I do know that we should be careful in condemning people, just because we don’t like what they do.
I understand a parent’s desire to not have their children exposed to sexual conduct. But then I read of the parents who don’t want their children exposed to gay sex through the book King and King. Whether or not you think one is wrong or one is right is based on your perspective. It is a sprectrum on which we will have to continue to create societal rules. I just want us to create rules based on what is good for everyone involved from children to adults.
I don’t have a final answer — but I think this whole situation calls us to have a good discussion.
For anyone who thinks enjoying quasi-public sex is limited to closet cases and cruisers, just google “mile-high club”. Straight people get their kicks off my risking discovery just as much as everyone else. But they don’t have an entire police squad dedicated to catching them, they don’t get arrested and they don’t get their pictures shown on the evening news.
I’m totally against people having sex in public places where others might be offended or where children can see them.
There is no doubt no shortage of gay men doing this. Just look on craigs list and you will see tons of ads asking people to meet them in public parks or public restrooms.
HOWEVER, I am afraid that an overzealous cop might mistake actions or a lazy cop might just assume the worst and make something up on someone simply because they are gay.
I wonder why these cops simply don’t wear an secret video camera and microphone and video tape the event? These devices are extremely small (the size of an ink pen for example) and cheap like $99. With the video there is no question of who did or said what.
The fact that the cops don’t use a secret video camera when they are so cheap and easy to use makes me a bit suspicious.
Marlin,
Your comments are more embarrassing than getting arrested having sex in a public bathroom.
It’s illegal and it’s stupid. Defending it – moronic.
Why does everything have to be “oppression” with you? You give the gay-haters more ammunition by being insensitive to the risk of children seeing adults acting dogs. Or even subjecting the rest of us from witnessing losers grunting in bathroom stalls.
It is disgusting behavior and the guys doing it should be ashamed. Before you say it Marlin – I mean ashamed for their bad behavior, not for being “gay.”
Daniel,
I hope the “police squad” dedicated to catching them” gets them all. The Eagle is open, they don’t need to use public bathrooms.
What the F Marlin? Consenting adults? What about the people who become unwilling voyeuristic sex partners because some inconsiderate assholes decide to hump in front of them? What about little boys who go into the restroom/Katy Trail/ grocery store/wherever this new, theoretical, socially condoned public sex ends up taking place? Did they consent to be included in the sex act?
If you’ll notice, in my original comment, I was not equating rape to public sex. I was just saying that you can’t equate public sex and gay sex just because religion has something to say about both. Just because religion says something is bad doesn’t mean it’s actually good. It just means you have to actually think about it outside of a 2000 year old morality system.
But now you’ve gone and forced me to draw out the comparison. Rape is not a victimless crime. Public sex is not a victimless crime. Not the same, certainly, but public sex forces others to take part, even momentarily, in something they don’t want. I don’t want to be included in someone else’s sex act just because I have to pee.
Furthermore – I’d be fascinated to learn more about the exotic place where pornography is “public sex.” It originates on a sound studio or a closed set (private), is sold in specialty stores (private), shown in specialty cinemas (private), or viewed in the privacy of ones own home (private)! Porn has nothing to do with the public. You’re comparing apples to asteroids.
So what I’m getting from this thread is that a majority of people in the LGBT community believe the cops should be able to do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, and they’re always right.
In other words, anytime anyone is accused of having public sex, it’s automatically never entrapment no matter what. The accused are sick individuals, sex addicts, immoral and stupid, but the cops are always right. Because we have to protect the children.
I hate to say it, but y’all are starting to sound like a bunch of right-wingers.
Interestingly your arguments have proven my point. Everyone has a limit to what they consider “okay.” The arguments I am hearing from you guys are the same arguments that National Organization of Marriage, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Roman Catholic Church, Mormon Church and their whole crew use to condemn gay relationships.
They are the victims of having to expose their children to such a perversion. It is illegal (used to be used before Lawrence v. Texas, and seems to still be used in El Paso LOL). Defending it is moronic (i.e. anyone should know that sex between men is not natural , sex between men doesn’t make sense because the parts don’t fit, and/or God doesn’t approve so defending it is just ignorant.). Many would say that gay relationships/sex is not victimless (Their children have to be exposed to the perversion at school by their fellow students who have same sex parents, Their children have to be exposed when books like King and King are introduced into the curriculum or on the library shelf. Their children are exposed when gay sex is taught as normal within the curriculum. They are exposed when they walk down the street and see two people of the same sex kissing (i.e. El Paso, San Antonio, Salt Lake City))
Once again, I am not advocating it. I am simply saying that many of the arguments used against GLBT relationships are the same language that is being used here to speak against public sex.
Chance, I will give you the arguments that pornography is conducted and sold in a private way. What my point was, and I don’t seem to be getting Iit across, is that the performers/models creating is not for their private use. It is sex done for the sake of entertainment, or to be legal educational purposes. It is created to be seen. It is no different than saying that television is private because the movies are recorded privately in a studio, the product is sold on a private channel (people only watch by choice.).
I asked for “rational” arguments. If these are rational arguments then I believe that the religious right has the right attitude in calling gay sex wrong. If we are going to think outside the box of such a religious premise to allow us gay sex, I am just saying that our arguments are comparable.
If you only knew how much of a prude I am. I would be embarrassed to walk into a room where two people (gay or straight) were having sexual relations. But my embarrassment doesn’t make it wrong. It just makes it my problem.
If society wants to continue to make it illegal then the police do have the right to arrest people. But the same could be said for gay people up until Lawrence. I am sure that most of you would have thought that was an overreach of police force, but gone along with it because it was the law.
If you are personally disgusted with public sex, don’t participate. I don’t, but that is my problem, not my condemnation. Oppression is a part of society. It is a way that we keep things from being total anarchy. One group is always oppressing another, and using laws to do so. As one person has noted, straight sexual partners are also having public sex, but we don’t see tons of arrests for that — why? — because it is “natural.”
I can hear the next argument. If we permit gay sex, then people will be having sex everywhere. This is the argument that I heard from my mother two years ago when they were going to vote to legalize alcohol. If we allow them to sell alcohol in the local store, or open bars people will be drunk everywhere. So people had to dive 30 miles to buy alcohol and they still drank it in her small town, and sadly went to the bars that distance away and drove home drunk. Yes, each time you legalize something, i.e. making society more free you end up with disasters. Like when you legalize gay relationships, society will come crashing down. Gay people will be everywhere. Gay people will be kissing each other everywhere, and holding hands.
In my heart I am a libertarian and so want as little government regulation as possible. I also believe in looking at things in as rational manner as possible. That means trying to remove my personal feelings about a topic, seeking to find the truth outside of considered social “norms”, and seeking not to impose my personal rules on others.
Once again — a rational argument would be that it harms someone — either the person having public sex, or the person who views public sex. I think our biggest argument is that we are not animals. Which is an interesting argument, but we are animals. We are just animals with a very highly developed social structure. But a social structure that has always been in flux. I think that flux is the greatest fear of individuals. We don’t like change — except when that change helps us individually.
I know my thinking sounds extreme and disturbing — even frightening — but so has the thinking of each and every person who has asked us to consider societal situations in view of our personal feelings versus rational arguments. This is how we have overcome racism, sexism, and working on homophobia. Not that we have overcome them completely, we are just coping better. If we were to ever decide, and I am not advocating it, to legalize public sex, then our society would learn to cope and change. We might have public sex areas — like we have bars and nudist camps — both of which some people would like to outlaw. You could then regulate public sex, but at the same time avoid it if you wished.
Well I will sign off today as Jonathan Swift — maybe that will help alleviate some anxiety.
John Wright,
What you are seeing is FEAR. Fear is the great oppressor of society. It is why we allowed our government to remove certain rights following 9/11. It is why we continue to allow situations in which government interferes in every part of our lives.
I don’t have a good solution to this problem, but know that people’s emotions are driving them in this area. Police force is always a double edged sword. We want police to protect us. We just don’t want them to catch us.
I was thinking of the recent events in the Cedar Springs area. The community called for more of a police presence to help fight crime. A good thing. But then we started getting all these cries about well they are issuing too many traffic tickets. Hmm . . . we want you here — but only enforce the law against that guy over there — not me.
John “Wright is Wrong” –
Bad behavior isn’t a political issue. In this instance, of course the benefit of the doubt FAVORS the Cops. This crap DOES exist in public restrooms and it is more embarrassing than QL. Gays and lesbians (homosexuals) do have an “image” problem and this illegal behavior doesn’t help. The homo-fearing and homo-hating public doesn’t need to hear about “gay men having sex in the rest room,” they need to hear positive things about us. Unfortunately, this seemly behavior gets attention and just fuels the “deviant” label. Plus, it’s stupid.
The Courts will determine if the Cops abused their power or somehow “entrapped” these idiots, but it seems AT THE VERY LEAST “exposing yourself” in the rest room isn’t very smart.
If it makes me “right-wing” to want the Cops stop this behavior that’s fine. Your position is enlightening and I appreciate the warning – I won’t be using the rest room at The Voice offices.
Finally, an opportunity for some humor in this discussion. From having worked at the Dallas Voice for years, I can assure everyone that just about the last thing you want to do is to have sex with your coworker in the restroom. We were all to busy bitching at and stabbing each other in the back to even think of such a thing.
The cop didn’t “catch” this guy. He participated in the staging of a lewd act in the public restroom at Dillard’s, which apparently is a “less public,” “more discreet” place than Macy’s. (Pity the customer [man, boy or child] who innocently walked into the Dillard’s restroom and saw this.) “Catching” the guy would have been walking in on him when he was in a compromising position. But cops who are too stupid, lazy or unlucky to “catch” criminals think they have to entrap them. Parents shouldn’t want their little ones walking into public restrooms seeing people having sex, whether one of them is a cop or not.
We definitely don’t know the full story. Society already thinks that we’ll side with the “gay side” no matter who is right or wrong. Whether you want to call it entrapment, perversion, or plain stupidity, our community should not be afraid to show our moral compass. We have a flag that represents all facets of LBGT and there are some conservative peeps under that flag. I wouldn’t consider myself a righty but do you have to be right-wing to know that having sex in a public bathroom where children can witness is wrong? We would expect the same kind of outrage from any other minority community. We’ve expected members of the Muslim community to condemn terrorism. We’ve expected the black/hispanic community to condemn criminal acts. Why is the gay community the exception?
Ya’ll can debate back and forth all you want as to whether it is right or wrong to have public sex and the need to protect the children, but in the end, it makes no difference what your opinion is. Your opinions expressed here are not going to do one thing to change the minds of people who want to have public sex. Everyone know the consquences of the possibly gettinjg caught and is willing to take the risk. Everyone knows a chlld may walk in, but doesn’t give a shit. So there. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
PLEASE POST THE NAMES OF THESE LOSERS.
I just want to try to clarify things a little. I happen to know one of the people involved in this sting that was arrested. The information that has been released (no surprise) has been altered in a way that leaves out certain details.. and adds new ones where appropriate and necessary to protect the cops involved, and to make the individuals involved seem much worse than they are. This was a PR stunt – used by the police to justify their existence and their budget. Think about it… we had 10 murders in Dallas this week, and probably 1000 or more drug deals. Is this an appropriate allocation of tax money? NO.. but it sure makes good PR!
A few points about this particular case that I know:
1) This was the individual in question’s first arrest – ever. In his life.
2) The officer came in front of his stall door and made sexual advances first. You tell me – is putting your finger in your mouth and actually acting out a blow job appropriate for a cop to do…especially when he comes up peeping into the stall through the cracks in the stall door. The officer was a young, decent looking, in shape white guy — Just what would attract most gay guys.. even if noone was looking for anything. The officer did come up to the stall and peek inside through the cracks in the door several times. The officer did proceed to try to illicit a response that was sexual in nature (with his fingergestures), and eventually he did get the person involved aroused. If that is not entrapment I do not know what is. As a matter of fact – who really was the pervert in this case… the person sitting in his stall doing his own business.. or the cop, coming up and peeping at people sitting in the stall through cracks in the stall doors, and making lewd gestures.
3) The sting lasted approximately 5 minutes — they did it as quickly as possible. This resulted in arresting at least one person I know of that does not match any of the derogatory descriptions in the posts on this site — He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong bigoted police officers- period.
Think people! There have been many acts like this over the past 2 years by these undercover cops that have resulted in rights being trampled, and have been primarily geared towards the gay community. Why are we spending money on this crap anyway – let Macy’s or Dillard’s police their own damn bathrooms… we have a city deficit that is huge.. .Make Macy’s/Dillards pay for security. .at least security guards might be honest and not fishing to make a quota.
Let me put this another way — if you walk into a restroom in Macy’s or Dillards, wash your hands, say hi to the vice cop also washing his hands, you sound gay, and the cop doesn’t like it.. he can arrest you and call it indecent exposure – think about it! And remember – you could even be straight… doesnt matter – -your word against a cop – good luck!
You are at the mercy of that cop bubba.. . and in my experience, cops are often quite corrupt and capable of telling quite a white lie! Don’t assume they are honest just because they carry a badge.
well…
just a question: why we dont see the same news about women cops arresting guys for the same ifrations?
(or guys that like women doesnt behave like this?)