There are few people whom I despise as much as righteous Republicans like, apparently, Larry Craig, but I feel badly for him, and wonder what kind of country this is where someone can be arrested for this "offense," and the resulting story can take off as it does. So he hung around a stall, and irritated his neighbor with his hands and feet about the place. Were that neighbor not a police officer, he'd quickly flush and leave. If he were interested in sex, and so was Craig, they'd have sex: and then that would be grounds for arrest, perhaps. But for flailing his hand under the divider? It's pathetic.

Vitter, on the other hand, is a clear hypocrite. Violating marriage vows with prostitutes while banging on about family values and sanctity of marriage. Craig may have the same odious voting record, but his 'hypocrisy,' on the basis of this 'incident,' is invisible so far as I can tell.
 

I think you are missing the point, eadw. The officer was there to 'clean up' that area known for public lewdness. Apparently Craig was using 'known' signals to solicit a public sexual encounter in that bathroom. Regardless if it is hetro- or homo- lewdness, I think everyone has the right to go the bathroom in peace. I'm sure you would agree.
 

Those are 'known' signals? A brushing foot or wayward hand (reaching for a piece of paper, if we give Craig the benefit of the doubt)? An innocent person could be 'guilty' of such an offense by accident, it seems. If you want to clean up the joint, then maybe spend your time watching for and actually capturing illicit behavior.
 

We weren't there, so we don't really know what he did with his foot and hand, but it seems it was enough that the officers thought Craig was interested in him sexually. And It's my understanding that johns (male and female) are arrested before they get the sex they are asking for not during. And after spending time with as many homosexual men as I have, I can assure you the signals for sex between closeted and out gay men can be subtle because of sigma, arrest, and retribution of some sort. I think it's naive and shows a lack of experience with these issues honestly not to put some weight to these charges.
 

What 'weight' would you put to these charges, 10.12? That it warrants the police time put into a two-page single-sided report such as the one Rich links to?
 

EADW, I can say that if you're in a men's room where this kind of cruising/sex is going on, it's pretty disturbing, and if this was such a place, then yeah, I'd say it's legitimate for police to monitor. (I can't tell you how many times I've walked into steam rooms/saunas at gyms in NY and DC and interrupted two men having sex; no fun.)

On the other hand, there's a balance to be struck between enforcing such laws and harassing people who aren't bothering anyone. But if I were using a toilet in a public bathroom and Larry Craig started staring at me through the crack, I'd feel sexually harassed, just as, I'm sure, you would if he were staring at you. There's no difference.
 

Female johns? Who they?
 

Again I also want to repeat that Craig, a US SENATOR, was intending to engage in a PUBLIC sexual encounter with a man. To make this more personal - what if your 7 year old son was trying to use the stall next to him as he was successfully seducing the man the other stall? I personally would appreciate if he would not do that, and limit his sexual encounters to a more private arena. And he CHOOSES to do that, I appreciate if someone stops him.
 

And 10:21, you are right. I don't know of any female johns either, although I'm sure there must be, just not as often. Women aren't excluded from inappropriate sexual behavior. I just threw that in because I was trying to un-emphasize the 'oh, my god he's gay' issue, which I could care less about.

And eadw: sorry I called you naive. That was a little harsh.
 

10.25: Surely you'd rather have your 7-year-old approached, if at all, by a serving US senator and not your grungy run-of-the-mill pervert?

Or, it's very dodgy when people try to 'make it more personal,' such as proposing a putative 7-year-old son for me. The point of justice is to be impersonal and so remove the vigilante mentality, which one can easily see this case approaching. The normal response, faced with irritants (and we suffer them daily), is to ask that person to leave, or walk away, and sure, report it to someone if it's truly worrying. But for a cop to be sitting in a stall waiting to cuff the first hand that dangles thereunder?
 

You're right! I'd much rather have my 7 year old son watch a senator have sex with a man in public than watch a run of the mill pervert do the same. Big difference. Great argument there, eadw! Guess you are naive.
 

What makes me uneasy about the police's role in this is the spectre of entrapment (and here is where some homophobia might be in play). I am thinking of the officer's description, "I moved my foot up and down slowly."
 

Here's an amusing clip from 1999 of Craig calling Clinton a "nasty, bad, naughty boy" ! Yecchh. I hope he decides to run again, and gets whupped next year.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/08/senator_larry_craig_rid_on_mee.php
 

4:08, are you "effing" kidding me? I'm inclined to quote the McCarthy slayer here..."at long last, have you no sense of decency, sir?"