From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: tearoom sex and bathroom police
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:57:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1993Jan12.075727.19300
Distribution: soc
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1993Jan12.025337.4855@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca> aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.153016.18746@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil  
>Snodgrass) writes:
>> 
>> But I as a person in the Gay community hope to hell we don't waste 
>> any or our resources on protecting bathrooms for sex.
>
>I have a *bit* of a problem with this, in that it too easily extends to  
>statements like "I hope we don't waste any of our resources in protecting  
>S/M freaks" or drag queens or bestialists or whatever.


It is a hairy issue for me too.  I mean I am not condoning MIT's crack
down.  I just don't want this to be on the for front of our agenda, you
know the 'GAy' agenda?!  


>
>The problem is that, if we cross too many people off of our "worth  
>protecting" list, there won't be anyone left to protect.

I just don't think it is a issue.  If it is it is a societal issue that
is based on the fact that this country has a lot of sexual hang-ups and
we need to really work on relaxing that.

I am for human rights and I fight for human right.  I am against abortion
but I go to pro-choice rallies and speak out about individual rights.
I don't like the government sticking its fingers into everything.

On a sort of parallel issue I wish we wouldn't be fighting so hard
to allow gays to be open in the military.  I mean it is a must but I
feel we need to use all of our resources on forcing a national equal
rights legislation through Congress.  If we win this one battle then
GLBO's will be able to be protected and be out in the military.



>
>The people we need to protect are those who are suffering unjust  
>punishment for "crimes" that are of no consequence, such as sexual acts in  
>private or highly secluded areas.

If it is harassement of Gays then go for it.  But if it is a legit complaint
by someone who just wanted to take a shit and was approached by 
some horny kind of guy then I feel that person should face the 
fiddler.  

>
>At the same time, we need to differentiate these from acts which are  
>actually antisocial, such as the sexual harrassment of straight men. The  
>degree to which these acts occur is an open question; it might actually be  
>quite rare. When they do occur, however, it should be obvious that they  
>are not worth defending. 

Agreed.


>
>It is important to make this distinction; too often, our fight against  
>injustice is construed to be a defense of the antisocial, such as in the  
>defense of persons entraped in bathrooms. This is does *not* make for good  
>PR.

That is my point.  I think we should protect them to an extent but that
we need to realize that it is the bigger issue of discrimination
that we need to be fighting.



>
>-Anthony


This is a gray topic matter.  At Portland State University back
in November we had the same issue.  What is nice is that we have many
contacts that get the message out.  Before the Portland Police Department
started a crack down on one of our parks a leak occured and the gay 
community was alerted to what would be happening.  So we protected
the people in the parks and we protect ourselves from some bad p.r.

Bil