04/08/2008
Larry Craig Will Be First in Line When This Hits Boise
A new film called Tearoom that screened recently at the Whitney Biennial reflects on the Larry Craigs of the 1960's:
"For two weeks in the summer of 1962, using a two-way mirror, police in the central Ohio town of Mansfield secretly filmed the activity in a public men's room in the town square. The surveillance recorded dozens of men having sex, resulting in more than 30 prosecutions for sodomy, with at least a year in prison time for each. Decades later, acclaimed filmmaker William E. Jones -- his Massillon is an autobiographical documentary about growing up in a nearby town -- acquired the Mansfield footage while working on another project. The images so fascinated him that he's been screening it, unaltered by further editing, as the 56-minute Tearoom. Shot without sound, in grainy color 16 mm, it's a stunning document. The men range in age from their 20s to their 60s. They are white and black, fat and thin, in a banker's suit or name-patched mechanic's uniform. Faces humorless, eyes on the door, they masturbate, give handjobs and blowjobs, and perform anal sex; a few exchange money. Michael Sicinski, in Cinema Scope magazine, called Tearoom 'one of the most soberingly revelatory political films of recent years' and "a cinematic document of vital importance to the history of gay culture in the United States."
And in a roundabout way, of the U.S. Senate.
There's a book available as well.
Tearoom [pittsburgh city paper]
Tearoom [william e jones]
Tearoom [book]
related
A Holiday Visit to the Larry Craig Men's Room [tr]
Posted 10:11 AM EST by Andy in Film, Larry Craig, News, Ohio | Permalink
Comments
These creeps all deserve to be arrested and exposed. I saw the documentary and 99% were married with children and were cheating on their spouses.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 8, 2008 10:33:47 AM
Sounds sort of Gestapo-ish. Sad that "real" crimes were ignored while the piggies were doing stakeouts in the tearoom. I'm surprised the smell of donuts didn't give them away.
Not sure when it became a crime to be "married with children and cheating on their spouses."
Posted by: Shane | Apr 8, 2008 10:41:45 AM
Bill Jones is a friend of mine and he's been owrking on this project for years. The film is utterly fascinating -- as is the story behind its making. This had beena popular tearoom, but catching guys in the act was difficult. Then a police groupie proposed hiding a camera and a cameraman in the men's room closet as it was right next to the stalls. The film shows how this was done before offering a selection of real-life sexual activities. As fas as I'm concerned this is the greatest erotic film ever made.
Now the downside: the participants were identified and arrested. Several were married men whose lives were ruined.
I have sympathy for them.
But none for Larry Craig.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 8, 2008 10:48:38 AM
Here is the police department film made from the footage.
http://www.planetout.com/popcornq/db/getfilm.html?11075
Posted by: John T | Apr 8, 2008 10:57:08 AM
The film seems pretty exploitive to me. While the idea of watching such a film may seem erotic to some, you have to keep in mind that these people didn't know they were being photographed at the time. Yeah, they were breaking the law, but the intent of these films at the time they were taken was to arrest men for committing "sodomy", not because they were doing it in a public place, unlike the laws today that Larry Craig got caught up in. Not having seen the film, and have no intention of seeing it, to me it just comes off as a documentary created around the films themselves to justify showing them for their erotic content. I don't care why these men were having sex in a bathroom in the 60s, or if they were married or not. They were arrested and served time for Sodomy. If the camera could have legally been set up in a private apartment to catch the act of sodomy between two consenting adults for the purpose of arresting them, they would have done so. To me, watching these films for erotic purposes is no different than watching films of a rape for the same thing. Just my opinion.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 8, 2008 11:07:19 AM
Jeff, this was 1962, not 2008. I remember back in 1985 watching "Consenting Adults" on television and it was the first positive depiction of a gay person I had ever seen. The men in this film didn't have the options we have today. I imagine in 40 years gay men will have a completely different opinion about us, as well.
Posted by: homer | Apr 8, 2008 11:07:38 AM
sounds like the fun i had in a certain adult bookstore back in the 80's with no police inteference whatsoever thankfully but this particular town was pretty wild sexually in all respects and for that i am most grateful -- where i shall not tell you for i don't want to spoil anybody's fun and i sincerely hope it's still going strong -- but there were all kinds of men there from all walks of life, gay and married, straight and single, of all ages and it was quite an eyeopener into the sexual varieties of human experience... and let me tell you something my darlings, you have no right to judge anybody's sexuality or how they choose to express it... like in that lana turner movie, love has many faces -- it does indeed...
Posted by: the queen | Apr 8, 2008 11:14:59 AM
I agree with Patrick. I think the film is exploitive and shouldn't be shown. It has ruined many people's live without good reason. It should be burned.
Iran probably has rooms full of such footage. Erotic? I think I would weep, not get a hard-on. Sheesh.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 8, 2008 11:27:39 AM
Senator Craig was not caught on tape doing anything.
Posted by: daveynyc | Apr 8, 2008 11:53:27 AM
Interesting: the privacy of individuals already punished for breaking society's rules VS the release of a public document which shows (now) how morally corrupt those rules were, and the behavior they precipitated. If the film points out how a corrupt and hypocritical society forced homosexual men to seek sexual freedom in "ugly" ways, then the film is important. But how can this society-- this culture-- explain why straight men seek out women for "ugly" behavior they keep hidden from their wives and families.
I'm not ashamed of the "tea room" activities of a sub-culture within the gay or homosexual sub-culture. They do what they do, and it is un-appealing to most folks--so do some heterosexuals.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 8, 2008 11:57:48 AM
It's a shame that many of the lives of these men were ruined back in 1962 and now some of them may have to relive that shame - again. What was once forgotten is bound to come out again and I wonder what the reaction will be now that many of these men are at different stages in thier lives.
Posted by: Beef and Fur | Apr 8, 2008 12:02:00 PM
I take exception to this being portrayed as "a cinematic document of vital importance to the history of GAY culture in the United States".
This may be a cinematic document of vital importance the history of CLOSET culture in the United States"; especially of the culture of closeted men who would violetly deny that they are gay.
This may be a part of life for a very small percentage of out gay men but that hardly qualifies as being vital to gay culture.
I think this is a instance where the word "homosexual" should have been used rather than "gay". To me a "gay" person is a person who identifies as homosexual and lives within this truth. Closeted men living as straight men may very well be homosexual but I wouldn't call them gay so therefore I wouldn't call their bathroom escapades a part of gay culture. Homosexual culture perhaps, but not gay culture.
HOMER, do you really think that there is less of this going on in 2008 than there was in 1962? There will always be the, "but things were different then" excuse, even forty years from now.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 8, 2008 12:15:21 PM
labels, labels, labels.. who cares what they call themselves or what they think they are -- as long as it's a good piece of ass that's all i care about... after shoving your big 10-incher up my only holy place or if i'm down on my knees catholic girl style working my hot feverish lips over a hefty 12 incher i don't care if you go back home to the wife and kiddies but then again back street with the fabulous susan hayward is one of my favorite movies of all time...
Posted by: the queen | Apr 8, 2008 12:33:42 PM
Zeke, I agree entirely. This film has nothing to do with gay culture. Furtive, humorless, anonymous sex has nothing to do with gay culture---if there even is such a thing as gay culture.
Posted by: Paul R | Apr 8, 2008 12:51:14 PM
THE QUEEN: now, you know that I know what you're saying: you don't like hypocrisy. Neither do I. But there are many gay men who do not believe that "tea room" or public parks, or any of that "dangerous public sex stuff" has anything to do with them. Then again, you and I may know nothing of the computer "hook up" activities of today's gay folks (was I being presumptuous to speak for you, darlin'?)
Homosexual men should not have public sex. OK, but why do they?
Zeke: It may surprise "relationship oriented" gay men to find out how many openly gay men have at some time indulged in "public sex activities"--not just closeted homosexuals do that. We just don't stay indulged in it. I was never into public men's rooms, but I certainly enjoyed the "great outdoors" of public parks. Such activities may be on the margins of gay history--they need to be explained...you know, why do they do that?
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 8, 2008 12:52:04 PM
It's been my experience that it's not only "straight" men cruising tearooms for anonymous sex, but out gay men who are cheating on their boyfriends.
Posted by: PeterH | Apr 8, 2008 1:00:44 PM
Zeke, you're making a boatload of assumptions in your 12:15 post. First, that none of the men identified as gay or homosexual or bent or nancy's or whatever the hell the term they used. Second, that they were all closeted. How do you know that? Maybe some of those dudes like having sex in public bathrooms--Joe Orton certainly wrote about that in his diaries. Third, assuming there was any non-closeted space of consequence for men-loving-men in 1962 (I know this seems to contradict my second point, but still).
I don't know how old you are, but I assure you, the only people out in 1962 *even in Los Angeles* lived very, very discreet lives or were such flaming queens that it was impossible to hide it. Gawd, those were the days of having to use 2 passwords to get in to a bar and when the cops showed up --not if, *when*-- all the men would start dancing with the lesbians so as not to get busted.
"Iran probably has rooms full of such footage. Erotic? I think I would weep, not get a hard-on. Sheesh"
Who gives a damn what gets you off? God, it's the prudish, finger-wagging types like you that make the "gay community" such a fucking trial sometimes. I have zero interest in tearooms or backrooms or any of that, but I also don't give a damn about what other people do.
Posted by: Henry Holland | Apr 8, 2008 1:05:44 PM
In 1962, in small town America or Canada, there WAS NO "gay" culture. There was no "gay" anything except for Doris Day and days in May.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 8, 2008 1:07:49 PM
HENRY HOLLAND:
[Me]: "Iran probably has rooms full of such footage. Erotic? I think I would weep, not get a hard-on. Sheesh"
[YOU]: "Who gives a damn what gets you off? God, it's the prudish, finger-wagging types like you that make the "gay community" such a fucking trial sometimes. I have zero interest in tearooms or backrooms or any of that, but I also don't give a damn about what other people do."
Excuse me? I think you misunderstood my sentiment. By a long shot. I certainly was not waging my finger at anyone or being prudish. While I never made a habit of it, in my younger days I had the odd BJ or hand-job in the tea room myself. It was fun, dangerous, and a little scary.
I was attempting to convey my compassion for the lives who were wrecked by by the clandestine footage obtained and made public. Someone called the film made from this footage erotic. I would not find it so at all. The footage was obtained without the consent of those involved. Lives were ruined. People were hurt. People were jailed. I don't think I could derive erotic pleasure from that.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 8, 2008 1:22:08 PM
I posted the link to the original police "training film" that used startling scenes from the stake out and a "homosexuality leads to violent sex crimes" narrative last fall after Craig's arrest.
And I totally agree with Zeke and those others who reject this as some kind of value neutral reflection of gay men generally. PRIVATE consensual acts are one thing—PUBLIC sex is another—and virtually all of what is shown in the film [by necessity of where the camera was hidden] would be immediately visible to anyone simpy walking into the restroom. We're not talking about people in a closed stall having discrete, quiet sex, but often outside of the stalls. I support the arrest of anyone—gay or straight caught participating in them; then or now. That's neither homophobic nor erotophobic but simply common sense. And, while the time and place was far more virulently antigay than now, anyone who suggests that had it been straight couples sucking and fucking in a public restroom in 1962 they would not have also been arrested is nuts.
Second newsflash: there were gay bars in 1962. Maybe not in Mansfield, but probably in Cleveland and Columbus, both within driving distance. But that's beside the point. While, for a variety of reasons, proportionately more gay/bi men were probably involved in such things then [see Laud Humphreys' book, "Tearoom Trade"], the fact that some still are doing it now when there are all kinds of places to meet others—and I'm talking about fully out, non-hetero-married gays—is NOT to be characterized as something intrinsic to gay men in any time or circumstance. Then and now, no one forces them. There was/is an alternative—NOT DOING IT. And most gay men then and most gay men now don't.
We fail to see that anything “found” is ipso facto “art,” but we trust Mr. Jones meant well and if the Whitney wants to show porn verite, c’est la pseudo chic, but I don't appreciate being branded by association just because I'm also gay. And Cinema Scopes’ Miss Sicinski should stick to writing about cinema and leave politics and gay culture to those who actually know something about it beyond swinging on someone else's schlong.
Such solipsistic pseudo sophistication which typically wraps itself in the flag of "AHRT" in order to excuse itself from any social responsibility is not new. Russell T. Davies, whom “The Independent” called Britain’s most influential gay last year [he revived the cult series “Dr. Who” and keeps giving hot out actor John Barrowman other men to kiss in its spin off “Torchwood”] snarled at those who criticized his series “Queer As Folk” for regularly showing men having sex without condoms that, as an artist, he had no responsibility about such things. That was 17 years into the AIDS pandemic and it’s safe to say [no pun intended] that thousands of emerging gay kids internalized the message that less safe sex was AOK. Fortunately, the makers of the American version, whatever its strengths or weaknesses, saw it differently and condoms were ubiquitous. Vive le difference!
Posted by: Leland Frances | Apr 8, 2008 1:38:23 PM
Gay straight, good bad. It happened. It has been recorded on camera. So it can be shown. Vital importance? I don't think so.
Posted by: SJ | Apr 8, 2008 1:57:12 PM
This would be an interesting movie to see. Thank god I did not live in the 60's. But I can not believe that they are going to show the faces of these men.
Posted by: Brian | Apr 8, 2008 2:01:00 PM
"And, while the time and place was far more virulently antigay than now, anyone who suggests that had it been straight couples sucking and fucking in a public restroom in 1962 they would not have also been arrested is nuts."
But in 1962 the straight couple would probably be charged with an indecent or lewd act in a public place and probably wouldn't be sentenced to prison time. They gay men were charged with Sodomy and spent a year in prison. Big difference.
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 8, 2008 2:01:09 PM
TO MISS DERRICK: yes my darling you got me pegged right but i think at heart i just don't care what people do for sex as long it doesn't hurt anybody and if they do it in public i could care less just clean up after yourselves, i hate picking up somebody's post-coital rubber, don't you? i never had that problem because i swallow but i consider myself quite a free spirit (a lovely psuedonym for "slut") and so there it is. and everybody here just better get over the fact that public sex happens all the time and will happen as long as there are humans on this planet. yeah, i hear you about some of these hoity toity queens here clutching their pearls in horror at the thought of some gays doing the nasty in public places but i think a little less judgmental attitude on their part all around would be quite beneficial in the long run. and though i've never done tea rooms I have known queens that do and I have done adult bookstores and have done it in cars and the occasional tryst in the alley (behind a dumpster once!) when i was hustling and just for fun after the shows and whenever i came across a fun trick. believe when i say that i have it on good authority that tearoom sex is doing quite well these days and both gay and straight do it. as for the internet hookups, well i once met and had sex with a straight married man who i met on a bbs (way before internet) but i rather like the immediacy and excitement of meeting your potential piece of ass face to face on the street or in a bar and checking out their vibes (i'm so 60's!) which is why i have such fond memories of the old days when there wasn't any tv, cellphones, or other kind of distraction in the bars -- you really got to cruise each other. but i guess i'm old fashioned. and i'm sure the children are having a ball with these new fangled electronics, ha!
Posted by: the queen | Apr 8, 2008 2:34:30 PM
HENRY HOLLAND, with all due respect, I think you need to read my comment again. I made NONE of the claims that you attributed to me.
DERRICK, my friend, that goes for you as well.
I never said that ALL the men were closeted and I never said that NO out gay men indulge in sexual encounters in public facilities. I said it was a very small percentage of the out gay population and I didn't think that the actions of a small sub-culture that largely does not identify as "gay" qualifies it for being "a VITAL part of gay culture". There are many sexual expressions found in various gay sub-cultures that I wouldn’t personally qualify as VITAL to gay culture even though they may be vital to the particular sub-culture.
I did not, as some here have said or implied, pass judgment on these activities, on the people who participate in them, or on the reasons that people give for why they participate in them. I don't think that ANY of these things are ANY of my business.
My ONLY point is that I think this would be better labeled a part of closet culture than of gay culture simply because the vast majority (but by no means all) of people who participate are closeted men while, I don't believe (and I could be wrong) that the vast majority of out gay men participate in these activities.
Like I said before, it seems that it would be more accurate to say that this is of “vital importance to A SUB-CULTURE of HOMOSEXUAL/BISEXUAL men” rather than saying it is of “vital importance to the culture of gay men”.
Some may think that that is splitting hairs but I think the distinction is valid and important. Words are powerful and their accurate usage is very important.
I'm sorry if people mistook my comment for being judgmental or self-righteous. It certainly wasn't intended to be.
Oh, and WELCOME BACK Leland my friend!
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 8, 2008 2:49:16 PM
Leland's back!!?! Leland, did you know a guy named Mike Bidwell (Bedwell? Bedwill?) has been stealing your thunder??
Anyway, not only was sodomy illegal (until very recently), but so was contraception in most cases, miscegenation in many states and adultery in some cases and homosexuality itself was considered a psychiatric disorder. In England they could lock you up for it, but it was more or less simply grounds for getting fired here in the US.
Posted by: anon | Apr 8, 2008 5:54:54 PM
I should add that this doesn't count as art, but would make a fine scientific documentary for sociologists, psychologists or psychiatrists. It's not really for the public at large.
Posted by: anon | Apr 8, 2008 5:57:26 PM
Jeff, massive apologies, I literally zipped right past the key part of your sentence, the "Iran probably...." bit, I went right to "Erotic?". D'oh! Sorry about that.
Zeke, I stand by what I wrote. You wrote later "Some may think that that is splitting hairs but I think the distinction is valid and important. Words are powerful and their accurate usage is very important" and I agree, however I think you *are* splitting hairs and using the words you choose in a fairly arbitrary way that has nothing close to a consensus behind them. I, for one, loathe loathe LOATHE the term "gay", I hate it. It's so.....frivolous, but it's the common usage and my preference, shirt lifter, is never going to catch on.
You seem to imply that there's this rigid line of homosexual / gay, based on levels of being out, but where is that line? I'm out to everyone but my the people at my job, because there's two rabid homophobes in the area I work in, it's simply not worth the trouble. I know people that are out at work but not to Grandma Jean. And on and on. So, is that person not out to Grandma gay or homosexual?
To write "Like I said before, it seems that it would be more accurate to say that this is of “vital importance to A SUB-CULTURE of HOMOSEXUAL/BISEXUAL men” rather than saying it is of “vital importance to the culture of gay men" is so pedantic, it makes my head hurt.
Posted by: Henry Holland | Apr 9, 2008 1:55:47 AM
I'm rather astonished and sickened by the judgmentalism I see in some of the comments here. A few quick points:
1) Yes, so public sex is illegal (now and then). Big deal. It's not like they were screwing out in the open in a public park right by the street while traffic whizzed by. They were in a restroom, and almost certainly stopped what they were doing if a new person walked in on them. Is that so terrible? Let's all take a valium and relax, please. If they were caught by the cops should they have been arrested? I guess so--the law is the law, after all. But wouldn't a citation and a fine have sufficed? They faced far harsher punishment than any straight couple doing the same would have faced. They were prosecuted under the old sodomy statutes that existed for the sole purpose of targeting men who had sex with men (no matter how broadly they were written.) It was a big news story, their names were publicized and so they were publically shamed and humiliated, many of them saw their lives ruined, marriages destroyed, and families treat them as pariahs. And they went to state prison for a year--A YEAR IN PRISON!! All because the city cops had nothing better to do than record them getting quickie, furtive handjobs or BJs in an enclosed space, with other consenting adults. Straight people screwing on the grass of the public square wouldn't have been treated anywhere near that harshly, and anyone who argues otherwise is delusional. It might have been at most public indecency, a fine and probation, and it wouldn't have made blaring front page headlines. Can we have a little compassion for what these men endured due to a moment of poor judgment and behavior that, in the grand scheme of things, is really quite minor? Oh, but I forget--this is America, where sexual indiscretions are anything BUT minor!
2) Let's recall that this was 1962--46 years ago. Society was far less sexually free and open than it is now (and it's hardly a picnic now, either) and gay or bi men, or men who were curious and wanted to experiment, had far fewer options than they do now. Few bars, few or no social groups, no ads in the paper, no Internet, no cell phones, etc. Tea room trade was the only realistic outlet that many of them had, and since this was the height of the baby boom and the marriage cult in the USA, most of them undoubtedly were married because to not be married was to be stigmatized strongly, and probably discriminated against as an adult man past a certain age. The tone of some of the comments here appears to be at least implicitly disapproving of their behavior based on the changed cultural and social norms and options that we now enjoy, and that is deeply unfair to them, and shows a remarkable blindness to the circumstances they actually faced (not some fantasy of what they COULD have done given some conjunction of more ideal factors.)
3) Another blindness I noticed is a blithe disregard for the fact that they were in Mansfield, Ohio, in 1962. Have any of you judgmental bitches ever been to Mansfield, or lived there? Well, I grew up in a small town close to Mansfield and I'm intimately familiar with the city, and lived there briefly as an adult before hightailing it for greener pastures. Rest assured, Mansfield is still quite homophobic and closeted and conservative and Republican and churchy. In my entire adult life I've only known of ONE gay bar in Mansfield, and it was about the size of a big walk-in closet and about as lame, too. And that was decades after the events in this "documentary"--I have no idea if there was even ONE relatively open gay bar in town in 1962. I'd have to ask my grandparents, but how they hell would they have known? And for the guy who said there were gay bars in Cleveland and Columbus at the time and they could have just driven there--um, hello, the quickest and easiest route to either city from Mansfield is Interstate 71, and its full length connecting the cities wasn't completed until AFTER 1962. Even today, zipping along at a nice rate of speed, it takes an hour to get from Mansfield to Columbus and a half-hour longer than that to go from Mansfield to Cleveland. Before the Interstate was built, who knows how long it would have taken but clearly much longer than that, with all sorts of side routes and detours. And since most of them were married and closeted (and maybe many of them were bi instead of just being closet cases), would they have even known where the few gay bars were in those larger cities, or known where to ask to find out? And how would it have been better or easier for them to leave their families behind and go on some quest for a gay bar to a distant city than to have just sought out a quickie in a local tea room? I doubt that most of them were looking for a gay social outlet, they were looking to get their rocks off, fast.
4) Finally, has any thought been given to the fact that some of these guys are probably still alive? Some were only in their 20s at the time of the sting. Was their consent obtained to show their faces, their public sex acts, their breaking of the law, their arrest and humiliation? Do they really need their wounds from decades ago reopened by having this film shown coast-to-coast? What if their grandkids get wind of the film and find out that granddad was busted for public perversion many years ago and spent a year in prison for it? Is that really necessary? Can't we let these men, at least those who are still alive, live in peace?
People need to get a clue, and show a little compassion and understanding. Reading some of the comments here, my thought was with bitches like some of you for friends and allies, who needs the Family Research Council?
Posted by: Scotty | Apr 9, 2008 9:31:43 AM
Zeke,
You're being disingenuous. I have read your posts on public sex before (George Michael) and you are most definitely against it. Just admit it.
And Derrick, I actually agree with you on this one.
By the way, I just saw a commercial for Verizon about the importance of your text messages going through. Why? Because otherwise your crazy dad will be out looking for you with a flashlight at Lovers' Point, shining it IN CAR AFTER CAR OF HETERO TEENS HAVING PUBLIC SEX!!!! (The girl had texted her father to say that she was sleeping over at a friend's, but he didn't get it). This sort of "rite of passage" for heterosexual teens was treated as the ABSOLUTE NORM! What is the difference between that and a tearoom? Scotty is right--they would have stopped if someone walked in...
Posted by: jmg | Apr 9, 2008 6:21:07 PM
For what it's worth, I remember this whole scandal when it happened. I was very young, but I remember all the adults talking about "them goddam queers" and so forth.
It ruined a lot of people's lives; a few committed suicide (not just the participants--a wife, one guy's child). After prison some people never came back to Mansfield. Some very prominent people were arrested and it was a huge scandal for a long time.
It was required viewing if you were going to join the Mansfield police department--it was considered a training film on "how to identify sexual deviants".
The public restrooms were in the town square called Central Park. They were on the north side and were actually underground. You had to walk stairs to use them. I remember using the men's room as a little boy while my mom waited outside for me. It was early evening and I remember that when I went down the stairs there were two men who were standing at each of the urinals. I used one of the toilets. When I was done, they were still standing at the urinal. I thought it was strange and felt a little weird because they watched me like they were waiting for me to get the hell out of there. Which I did.
I never said anything to my Mom, but when the scandal broke I remember thinking about that time I used the public bathroom in Central Park.
Later on in my life, I got to know two of the people who had been arrested and sent to prison. This was mid-1970s. One guy was unfazed by the whole experience. He moved away for several years to New York City and then moved back to Mansfield. The other guy never left. Apparently, his father paid BIG money to the powers that be to keep his son's name out of the papers and to get him off the hook.
To think about it all these years later, one could perhaps say that we have come a long way as far as being able to live our lives more openly. But then, there is someone like Larry Craig who still cannot find the love within to live his life honestly and has to resort to public restrooms and anonymous sex.
Posted by: Al | Apr 12, 2008 2:45:23 PM
God you queens are chatty on this. Turn your computer off. Go outside. Enjoy life boys.
Posted by: Brad Lamm | Apr 13, 2008 10:40:52 AM
I feel sorry for the guys in 'Tearoom'. Society and law was different back then. Larry Craig and other married 'straight' guys I don't feel sorry for. They're idiots and hypocrites. They're the first ones to wag their fingers and vote Republican.
Punishing people for public sex...well, that depends. If it's in a public restroom, bus station, libraries or what have you, yes, since it is a nuisance to other patrons who have no interest in viewing/participating in your sex life. As for a lover's lane or a park...I think it falls in the 'right of passage' area. I am a country flower and everyone I know, gay or straight, has gone on a 'picnic' for canoodling purposes.
Posted by: Wheezy | Apr 13, 2008 1:10:51 PM
p.s. I am biased since I was conceived in the backseat of my mother's mustang
Posted by: Wheezy | Apr 13, 2008 1:22:02 PM
Scotty, Bravo! Bravo! I have read the same comments posted here you reference and found them equally offensive or ill-informed. You state my feelings exactly, and unlike most of you "youngsters" I was around (albeit as a child, but one who remembers the way folks lived) and can tell you it is simply wrong to revel in anothers ruination. Those who say such film is erotic ought to get into rehab or therapy.
Posted by: Brett | May 29, 2008 7:52:48 PM
Recent Comments