Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Southern Voice (http://www.sovo.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=8/22/07&end=8/29/07)
Posted by Kevin Naff, Washington Blade Editor

The news that U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct charges stemming from an investigation into sexual activity at a men's restroom in the Minneapolis airport will not come as a surprise to those like me who have heard the gay rumors about him for years.

I know I'm naive, but it struck me how little I know about this stuff when the cop started describing these elaborate signals people use.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12683.html

In Eugene, Oregon they were afraid of a trans person coming into the womans restroom and attacking them. I guess they should be afraid of politicians in suits instead. In the last few years there have been quite a few politicians getting arrested or quitting their jobs cause they have homosexual affairs. You know if you want to be part of the GLBT, then why don't they just relax the laws a bit and let us have the same rights. Maybe you won't get plastered in the news media and you won't have to quit your day job.
Sheila

My hopeful dream is that he will decide that it's time to change. Time to be out with who he is..  maybe HRC or some other group will go to him and say, "we can help you with this." Time to stop the habit of homophobia, internal and external. Life can be better for him.. time for courage, Sen. Craig.
Tara

I could make a crass comment about Republicans being against gay marriage because marital gay sex would be too boring for them.  Or I could make a comment about Log Cabin Republicans having to be into BSDM by definition.  (Any gay person would only join the Republicans in order to be abused.)  But we have Republicans who frequent this site, so I won't say any of that.

Lisbeth,
   The LGBT crosses all political parties they are exclusive to one. The same goes for homophobia and all the rest of the phobias that are prejudice in nature. This is not about politics, its about people who practice politics and do one thing and say another.
Sheila

That's why I said I wouldn't say any of those things.   ;D

Quotes from his press interview:

"I did nothing wrong."
"I am not gay, I have never been gay."
"I overreacted when I decided to plead guilty to the misconduct charges."
"I plead guilty hoping that it would go away."

Slimy politician he is.  I hope they vote him out.  Why cant' he take responsibility for his own actions?  We put the might and power of the US into the hands of our elected representatives. If we can't trust what they say about a stupid sting operation, how in the world can we trust them with the power of our military?

It goes on and on and on and on and a significant portion of our populace still supports these geese lovers because they say they are strong on terror.  Yeah.  Right.

Cindi

I did nothing wrong."
"I am not gay, I have never been gay."
"I overreacted when I decided to plead guilty to the misconduct charges."
"I plead guilty hoping that it would go away."

He is a politician and should know how to speak to people and he is probably a lawyer too. I don't have that much education and if I wanted to lie about it, I certainly would not admit and plead guilty. He knew that it would hit the papers, he couldn't be that stupid. Anyway you look at it, he should be gone.
Sheila

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 28, 2007, 03:56:48 PM"I am not gay, I have never been gay."

Actually, I suspect he's bisexual.  Many bisexual (non-TG) men (obviously not all of them) are the worst hypocrites.  They feel that because they are attracted to women too, they can use that for how they are publicly seen and then have some sort of homosexual affair in private.  Being anti-GLBT is only a cover-up to try and throw suspicion.  These are the same kind of men who end up being ->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<-s so they can still have the male genitals in the bedroom, but keep a public image of being straight.  It just makes me sick.

QuoteActually, I suspect he's bisexual.  Many bisexual (non-TG) men (obviously not all of them) are the worst hypocrites.  They feel that because they are attracted to women too, they can use that for how they are publicly seen and then have some sort of homosexual affair in private.  Being anti-GLBT is only a cover-up to try and throw suspicion.  These are the same kind of men who end up being ->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<-s so they can still have the male genitals in the bedroom, but keep a public image of being straight.  It just makes me sick.

Such a smart, smart girl!!!  Yes, it's very true, that str8 men have adopted the attitude recently, that having sex with another man doesn't make them gay, if:

They only receive the first thing and only give the second.
They don't support or engage in the "lifestyle."

Now, whether that makes them gay, or BI-sexual or str8 depends on who is doing the judging.

But I'd bet 80 to 90% of those guys in positions of power are all about this same identical behavior. Just keep it quiet and play along.

It's kind of like men that keep a mistress. It's OK as long as everything is kept quiet and nobody acknowledges it. It's also a lot like Catholic attitude toward abortion. Everyone's against it, but almost every catholic woman I've known has had one. But it's OK as long as you keep it quiet. This is kind of a southern attitude toward social faux pas. Ignore it and it will go away ~ Don't acknowledge it, and it never happened.

You know, the Republicans Party is the Republicans' worst enemy.  If they didn't prop up such a stringent and non accepting party platform, they wouldn't have such an impossible standard to meet.  How many Republicans have been ousted in the past few years for sexually related activities?

I believe that the personal life of a politician is no one's business, especially when it comes to their sexual activities. As long as it does not involve minors, I could really care less. But when they stand up and hold everyone to an impossible moral standard, there are bound to be conflicts.

They have literally painted themselves into a corner on this one.  Let them fall.

Cindi

Quote from: Sheila on August 28, 2007, 04:17:49 PM
He is a politician and should know how to speak to people and he is probably a lawyer too. I don't have that much education and if I wanted to lie about it, I certainly would not admit and plead guilty. He knew that it would hit the papers, he couldn't be that stupid. Anyway you look at it, he should be gone.
Sheila

I think the guy should be canned just for being stupid, regardless of what else may have occurred.  Like Dennis Miller said, "there should be 3 possible verdicts from the jury...Guilt, Innocent, and WTF?"

....Laurry

Its hypocrisy the problem here, not being gay, bisexual or not.
Though, I think having sex in a public restroom should be
arrestable whoever does it and if as a politician you
have poor enough judgement to do it, well you don't deserve to be elected
regardless of being gay, bi or straight.

QuoteThough, I think having sex in a public restroom should be
arrestable whoever does it

In the privacy of a stall?  Please tell me you are joking? Is that for all sexual conduct in public places?  Because if that is the case, and you have not indulged your naughty side, you have not lived! I don't know any dykes that haven't gotten it on in a woman's restroom at least once. And I'd bet that it is a biggie on the wish list for most men, so you str8 gals might want to rethink that puritan attitude.

Look, as far as I am concerned, this sting operation against sexual conduct is the last gasp of the conservative state and harkens back to Stonewall. Control, control, control.

The big deal for me is not that the senator got caught, because to me the whole situation is bogus. What IS a big deal to me, is that he is actively involved in a poltical party that castigates people that engage in that same behavior as something between less than human and spiritually diseased. And "those people" need to be cured and to have their rights denied, even though he is also MSM. This all goes back to honesty.

A guy like that hates queers and trans-folk because he cannot stand the fact that they live their lives honestly out in the public eye. That must just drive him crazy.

I prefer a nice room at a good hotel ;)  That's my choice.

It is pretty funny that the laws enacted by the holier than thou gang are turning around and biting them right where it hurts.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 28, 2007, 10:21:37 PM
It is pretty funny that the laws enacted by the holier than thou gang are turning around and biting them right where it hurts.

Perhaps that's their thang -- the risk turns them on, so they up the ante then bust a nut flouting the rules they themselves had a hand enacting!

And fear of imminent discover is a turn-on/sexual rush!

And they say we're the ones with paraphelias...

Karen

"And another one bites the dust, and another one bites the dust." John Lennon said " Iam sick to death of hearing things from uptight, shortsighted, narrow minded hypocrites. All I want is the truth." Are we ever going to get it? I am not going to hold my breath. :icon_blahblah:

Quote from: Lisbeth on August 28, 2007, 12:07:23 PM
I could make a crass comment about Republicans being against gay marriage because marital gay sex would be too boring for them.  Or I could make a comment about Log Cabin Republicans having to be into BSDM by definition.  (Any gay person would only join the Republicans in order to be abused.)  But we have Republicans who frequent this site, so I won't say any of that.

Hey, hey....  as a member of the BDSM community, that IS a crass comment - who want Log Cabin Republicans?!?  ;)

But seriously, this type of thing never surprises me.  The more righteous and controlling a person is about dictating the morals of society, the more likely they are to be hiding something or another it seems.

Jay Leno played a great video tonight with Sen. Craig talking about Pres. Clinton, back in the old 'Blue Dress' days, when Republicans were at the height of their "we're all so moral and family orientated" flag waving.

"SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don't know where the Senate's going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure resolution and it's a slap on the wrist. It's a, "Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy." The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.

I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy..."

Here's the link to the video if you wish to see it - it's just downright creepy!   :o
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/08/republican-sena.html

I think someone's been thinking way too much about 'nasty, naughty boys...'  ;)

Scott

Quote from: Thundra on August 28, 2007, 05:37:00 PM
Yes, it's very true, that str8 men have adopted the attitude recently, that having sex with another man doesn't make them gay, if:

They only receive the first thing and only give the second.

Ok, I'm totally dense.  I have no idea what you mean by the first thing and the second.

Posted on: August 29, 2007, 09:34:47 AM

---

Quote from: Keira on August 28, 2007, 07:40:19 PM
Its hypocrisy the problem here, not being gay, bisexual or not.

It's larger than just that, because anyone who insists on "taking the moral high ground," automatically commits him/herself to so high a standard that in order to be human (s)he has to become a hypocrit.

Quote from: Jolene4ever on August 29, 2007, 12:04:57 AM
All I want is the truth." Are we ever going to get it? I am not going to hold my breath.

You, of course, know the old joke about how to tell if a politician is lying?  His lips are moving!!!!

A few years ago, the University of Georgia ran a study on reactions to gay porn.  They went out and got a group of the most homophobic men they could find (easy to do in Georgia) and a group of men that stated they were neither homophobic nor pro-gay (basically ambivalent).  Using an elastic band around the penis to electronically measure erections they showed each person hardcore gay porn.  To the person, all the homophobic individuals had a much stronger (harder) reaction to the porn than the ambivalent group most of whom had little reaction.  When I last heard of this, there were not enough people studied to present a scientifically valid conclusion as the groups they started with were small and I don't know if the study is still going on.

Beverly

Quote from: Mallard500 on August 29, 2007, 04:58:18 AM
Hey, hey....  as a member of the BDSM community, that IS a crass comment - who want Log Cabin Republicans?!?  ;)

I'm more worried about offending BDSM people than I am about offending Republicans. 

When they are up on the cross, who cares what party they are?!

Quote from: Lisbeth on August 29, 2007, 11:51:47 AM

Quote from: Mallard500 on August 29, 2007, 04:58:18 AM
Hey, hey....  as a member of the BDSM community, that IS a crass comment - who want Log Cabin Republicans?!?  ;)

I'm more worried about offending BDSM people than I am about offending Republicans. 

Oh, no fear... I was joking.  Besides, you should fear Republicans much more - after all, we'll only screw you or hurt you if you want us to!   ;)

Oh, and as to the doing the "first and second thing"...  the comment is made in reference to those so called straight men who believe as long as they're not the passive one, it's 'ok' to "fool around" with other men.

So they can receive oral sex, and it's ok - they're not playing the woman's role. Ditto with penetration - it's still manly if they're the ones doing the penetrating; they just wouldn't want to receive it.

(The above views are not shared by the author!  Any more explanation and we'll have to take it to the Sexuality forums.  ;D )

And so, (returning to the topic...), did anyone else get as creeped out watching Craig talk about 'naughty, nasty boys' as I did...?  That was positively creepy, even for a Republican!   :o


Scott

Quote from: Mallard500 on August 29, 2007, 01:31:00 PM
And so, (returning to the topic...), did anyone else get as creeped out watching Craig talk about 'naughty, nasty boys' as I did...?  That was positively creepy, even for a Republican!   :o


Scott

Yes, I did.  This man is truly evil incarnate.  It is not surprising however. It's a common theme we've seen over the past few years. These guys prop up their base by actively discriminating against those of us who can not defend ourselves.  They demonize the minority to prey on people's fears and bigotry.  I am fearful of anyone spewing this sort of hate.

Cindi

Quote from: BeverlyAnn on August 29, 2007, 11:16:18 AM
A few years ago, the University of Georgia ran a study on reactions to gay porn.  They went out and got a group of the most homophobic men they could find (easy to do in Georgia) and a group of men that stated they were neither homophobic nor pro-gay (basically ambivalent).  Using an elastic band around the penis to electronically measure erections they showed each person hardcore gay porn.  To the person, all the homophobic individuals had a much stronger (harder) reaction to the porn than the ambivalent group most of whom had little reaction.  When I last heard of this, there were not enough people studied to present a scientifically valid conclusion as the groups they started with were small and I don't know if the study is still going on.

That's quite interesting Beverly.  I suspect that because their reaction is much stronger AND they are not proud of it, they make assumptions that other people also have the same reaction or that certain groups think like they do (i.e. GLBT groups), when in reality this is far from the truth. 

So basically, these misguided souls go on a quest in order to battle their own inner demons, but focus on external influences (which obviously never solves the problem) instead of focusing internally where the problem really lies.  Perhaps another reason they target us is because we DID focus internally and dealt with the problem where it really lies. 

I suspect that these people aren't very good at actually solving problems (being that they can't even correctly identify or deal with the root cause), so it stands to reason that they also don't make very good politicians in the sense of somebody who solves problems, but they just happen to be very good at influencing others.

Don't mind me.  I'm just kind of thinking out loud here and coming up with my own theories and different angles on the subject, of which may or may not actually be correct. :P

All politicians rely on the voters having a short memory.  And the voters rarely let them down.

Julie

How true Julie.  Short memories are politicians savior.


Sarah L.

Quote from: Melissa on August 29, 2007, 04:02:26 PM
Don't mind me.  I'm just kind of thinking out loud here and coming up with my own theories and different angles on the subject, of which may or may not actually be correct.

I think your conclusions are pretty close to the preliminary conclusions reached with the study.  Have you ever noticed that most of these do gooders don't want to pass laws to prevent themselves from doing something but always "for the good of their neighbors" instead?  I always tend to think about these individuals that "the woman doth protest too much." 

Beverly

I heard the dude say he is not gay and, strangely, I felt compelled to believe him.  I'm sure he was seeking sex, but I'm thinking that it's some kind of fetish rather than true sexuality.  Like maybe he gets excited and thrilled by just doing the thing he most believes is an awful thing to do.  weird

   I also have the opinion that public bathrooms are not for sex.  I don't like the idea of a parent sending their 10 year old in there just in time for the kid to witness something like that even if it is in a stall.  I also feel like vomiting every time I think of intimacy in such a place.  I've never understood the attraction.

These people are perverts... plain and simple. 

I would not want them around MY kids!

Cindi

Quote from: Melissa on August 29, 2007, 04:02:26 PM

Quote from: BeverlyAnn on August 29, 2007, 11:16:18 AM
A few years ago, the University of Georgia ran a study on reactions to gay porn.  They went out and got a group of the most homophobic men they could find (easy to do in Georgia) and a group of men that stated they were neither homophobic nor pro-gay (basically ambivalent).  Using an elastic band around the penis to electronically measure erections they showed each person hardcore gay porn.  To the person, all the homophobic individuals had a much stronger (harder) reaction to the porn than the ambivalent group most of whom had little reaction.  When I last heard of this, there were not enough people studied to present a scientifically valid conclusion as the groups they started with were small and I don't know if the study is still going on.

That's quite interesting Beverly.  I suspect that because their reaction is much stronger AND they are not proud of it, they make assumptions that other people also have the same reaction or that certain groups think like they do (i.e. GLBT groups), when in reality this is far from the truth. 

Indeed, SO true...!    It's that same sad truth that I base part of my Signiture line on - about how well the Oppressed does oppression...?  :-\

The deeper and darker your closet, the more frieghtning it is to see other people doing "those things" in the open!  One of the best bits of wisdom my Mother shared with me was the simple adage that 'people judge others by themselves.'

Too bad for Sen. Craig - and WAY too bad for the country controlled by people like him.

Scott

I've personally never understood the attraction to having sex in public restrooms or parks. I do find Senator Craig's situation sad, and also others like him when they're caught, however I also believe that these people who rage against gay and trans issues have done significant damage and deserve to have their hypocrisy exposed.

zythyra

Quote from: Mallard500 on August 29, 2007, 01:31:00 PM

Quote from: Lisbeth on August 29, 2007, 11:51:47 AM
I'm more worried about offending BDSM people than I am about offending Republicans. 

Oh, no fear... I was joking.  Besides, you should fear Republicans much more - after all, we'll only screw you or hurt you if you want us to!   ;)

I knew you were, which is why, when I said it, my tonge was pressed firmly in my cheek.

Thanks for explaining about the "first and second thing."

Posted on: August 30, 2007, 10:46:08 AM

---

More on Craig's problems:

Craig finding himself alone amid scandal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070830/ap_on_go_co/craig_arrest;_ylt=Al3VJ2rjaAqewYQWrgxkDHJI2ocA)

And this analysis from electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/):

QuoteUntil two days ago, all political analysts expected Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) to glide to an easy victory over former Rep. Larry LaRocco (D). When the news hit that he pleaded guilty to lewd and indecent conduct in the mens' room at the Minneapolis airport in June, all of a sudden, Republicans of all stripes are calling for him to resign (so the Republican governor can appoint a new Republican senator). A compromise could be that Craig finishes his term but does not run for reelection, in which case the seat is safe for whoever wins the Republican primary, which will be bitter since the winner is assured of being elected. If Craig refuses to leave, LaRocco will talk about nothing else the entire year other than Craig's bathroom habits, which might be all he needs. My guess is that Craig will either resign or retire. The pressure on him to get out of there will be enormous.

What's really sad about the entire thing is people abandoning Craig (other than Rep. Barney Frank) like he has leprosy and calling for an ethics committee review but Vitter (R-LA) shows up in a prostitutes contact list and there is no call for ethics review.  So I guess by Senate ethics paying a hooker is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge type of thing.

Senate ethics...now there's an oxymoron for you.

Beverly

Quote from: BeverlyAnn on August 30, 2007, 03:05:02 PM
What's really sad about the entire thing is people abandoning Craig (other than Rep. Barney Frank) like he has leprosy and calling for an ethics committee review but Vitter (R-LA) shows up in a prostitutes contact list and there is no call for ethics review.  So I guess by Senate ethics paying a hooker is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge type of thing.

Please notice that it is the Republicans who are calling for him to resign.  Do you suppose that this has anything to do with it:  Senate Fails to Renew Patriot Act (http://tuftsdems.blogspot.com/search?q=craig)

Quote from: Lisbeth on August 30, 2007, 03:34:37 PM
Please notice that it is the Republicans who are calling for him to resign.

Of course it's the Republikans calling for him to resign.  The Demos are too busy behind their office doors rolling around on the floor, kicking their heels and laughing. ;)

Beverly

Quote from: BeverlyAnn on August 30, 2007, 03:42:46 PMOf course it's the Republikans calling for him to resign.  The Demos are too busy behind their office doors rolling around on the floor, kicking their heels and laughing. ;)

I think Lisbeth is saying that it's not that the republicans are abandoning him, but that they are sticking to the "values" that they say they represent.  By supporting him, that would look REALLY bad for the republican party.  I think it may actually be a move to "save face" more than because they actually dislike what he did.

Quote from: Melissa on August 30, 2007, 03:59:54 PM
I think Lisbeth is saying that it's not that the republicans are abandoning him, but that they are sticking to the "values" that they say they represent.  By supporting him, that would look REALLY bad for the republican party.  I think it may actually be a move to "save face" more than because they actually dislike what he did.

No, not quite.  For those who didn't follow the link to the Tufts Democrats blogspot:

QuoteFriday, December 16, 2005

Senate Fails to Renew Patriot Act (http://tuftsdems.blogspot.com/search?q=craig)

In a stunning move today and a victory for the civil liberties of all Americans, the U.S. Senate today failed to reauthorize several provisions of the Patriot Act, which were deemed as being too intrusive on Americans liberty, freedom, and privacy.

A massive blow to President Bush and the Republican leadership, the Republicans failed to gain enough votes to overcome the bipartisan filibuster led by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, and Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho.

Feingold and Craig have argued that some of the provisions considered most detrimental to the rights of Americans laid out in the Bill of Rights, such as roving wiretaps, and secret warrants which require a library to turn over records of what books people have read, must have enormous safeguards put in place. The Bush Administration has refused to budge on the issue. Unless a last-minute compromise is put in place, the provisions will all expire on December 31.

The Bush Administration immediately (and naturally) attacked Democrats as being soft in the war on terrorism. But the real question is whether, on the heels of the news that Bush had authorized domestic spying (see Mickey's entry below), we can trust the government -- especially this government -- to use these powers with the discretion intended.

This is an ENORMOUS victory for Democrats, for civil liberties, and for everything America stands for. For the moment, at least, we should be deeply thankful that there are still some in Washington, both Republican and Democrat, who stand up for what they believe in and for our country in the face of the smears of our current administration.

That blog post is dated in 2005.  Since then they have not only passed the patriot act with the provisions that they wanted back then, but they have also granted unprecedented powers for snooping to the executive branch.

Hey, I heard some right wingers today on the airwaves saying that we should have compassion and forgive this guy.  Interesting perspective no?

Cindi

Let me explain for those who seem to need it.  There are several factors in play here.

First of all this is one more in a long string of Republican sex scandals going back to well before the last congressional election.  Scandals in which Republicans have demonstrated a knee-jerk reaction of defending their colleages even in the face of damning evidence.  This has established a mindset amoung voters of viewing Republicans as "ethicaly challenged."  In order to avoid further loss of voter support, they can't afford to automaticaly jump to anyone's defense anymore.

Add to that the fact that Senator Craig has demonstrated a willingness to break with his party on issues that the administration viewed as key.  Hence the 2005 blog I posted.  Without an unblemished record of party loyalty, Craig puts himself at risk from his own party.  Let's face it, for all their talk of "family values," the thing Republicans really value most is party loyalty.  If they need to "throw a lamb to the wolves," it may as well be someone who has shown disloyalty in the past.

Then concider the Idaho Senate election next year.  Craig would have been an automatic shoe-in with his constituants... until now.  His opponent Larry LaRocco is going to hammer on the ethics question all through next year if Craig stays in office.  If he resigns now, Governor Otter can appoint a new Republican senator who who will have a year to establish a favorable reputation with the voters.  This would greatly improve Republican chances of retaining the Idaho seat in 2008.

All in all, Republicans can't afford to defend him, have little reason the support him, and would gain an advantage by getting rid of him.  Therefore...