It is delicious when public figures are caught engaging in the very sex acts that they condemn in their official capacities. Payback's a bitch. However, we must be careful not to hurt our own cause. We must be unequivocal in condemning the hypocrisy, not the sex acts.
A man who served in the United States Congress for 26 years did a tea dance in a rest room seeking a consensual, anonymous same sex encounter. The issue, if we are angry with this man, is his wrong-headed, discriminating, hate-filled legislative actions while he was a Senator - NOT the tea dance in the bathroom. After all, don't we want to be able to choose our own forms of consensual sexual expression with others?
And how about the Judge just caught wearing a dress? I mean, come on, people! How can we advocate for the right of free sexual expression without government interference and then cheer when someone is vilified for doing exactly what we want to be able to do? If we have an issue with the Judge, who was forced to step down because of the shame he felt at being caught cross-dressing, then let's look at his record on the bench to see whether there is anything there worthy of criticism.
And now we have a very pro-LGBT Governor who will almost certainly have to step down from his elected position for engaging in a victimless crime with a consenting partner. Is the issue that he engaged in prostitution or is the issue that he has campaigned against prostitution while engaging in it himself? Or is the issue, perhaps, that Americans need to re-think laws about sexual expression and to reconsider them in terms of the reality of our current morality in this country.
If we join in the glee and finger-pointing when the light shines on a hypocritical public figure who engages in consensual sexual expression, are we not in some way also joining in the denigration of those sexual behaviors? Don't we run the risk of inflaming the sexphobia that victimizes and marginalizes us?
Instead, let's refocus that light, let's seize these occasions, to point out that there is nothing wrong with what these people are doing sexually. We scorn their hypocrisy, not their sexual expression. Sexual freedom is a fundamental human right that extends even to people we don't like very much.
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
7 Comments
« An open letter to Sally Kern | Home | David Archuleta- DREAMGIRL! Danny Noriega -TMTH! »
Hey, Ricci, you make a lot of sense and I agree.
There is a very important cross-dresser coming to Washington in a few weeks. He's well known as being officially against cross-dressers. Yet, there he will be being cheered by thousands, maybe millions, in his very best robes.
I gave up trying to make sense of this world some time ago; but yes, we shouldn't cutoff our noses to spite our faces.
FatherFaggot | March 11, 2008 5:39 PM
Reply to this comment
I will still criticise people for having sex in a public restroom, no matter what form.
There is a time and a place for sexual expression, and a public restroom is niether.
diddlygrl | March 11, 2008 8:46 PM
Reply to this comment
I actually find myself agreeing with diddly on this one... Sex in an airport bathroom just isn't appropriate. It's too public. I don't really have a problem with sex in public if done discreetly and with no chance of getting "caught." Lover's Lane, in the park at night, etc. During the middle of the day when my kid could go in the bathroom and see/hear two guys getting it on in the stall is a little much.
The judge though? That's just ridiculous. Like Ricci, I feel sorry for him that he has to feel that ashamed for something several other people do and has no victim.
I also don't see the big deal about Spitzer except that he made a career out of prosecuting prostitutes and johns while being a john himself. The hypocrisy kills me.
Great first post, Ricci. I look forward to more! Welcome to the family!
Bil Browning | March 12, 2008 7:30 AM
Reply to this comment
Let's ignore the hypocrisy-as-a-crime-in-itself and try to use it as an educational tool! Sexual hypocrisy is an inherent part of these puritanical sexual standards! And writing every sentence with an exclamation point at the end gets annoying after a while!
Great first post, Ricci! Welcome to TBP!
Alex Blaze | March 12, 2008 9:12 AM
Reply to this comment
Ricci,
Welcome to the Bilerico family!
You are right. It should about the hypocrisy.
Michael Crawford | March 12, 2008 1:53 PM
Reply to this comment
You write:
1. Spizer broke existing laws as an AG while prosecuting the same offenses. 2. Spizer broke the existing law while governor. 3. Spizer tried to get the bank to hide some of his financial transactions ... which is illegal. The bank refused. 4. Spizer used taxpayer monies in order to travel to and from some of these trysts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/spitzer-prostitute-detail_n_91116.html
NOW we can talk about the issues you raised.
crescentdave | March 12, 2008 2:21 PM
Reply to this comment
Ricci, I agree with most of what you've said. But from what I've been hearing about the Spitzer case, it's not just about the hypocrisy. It's about the fact that he potentially used public funds to pay for prostitutes.
Here's my 2 cents: If you're gonna get caught with a hooker, at least get caught with a high dollar hooker. A tip o' the hat to you Mr. Spitzer.
Serena Freewomyn | March 13, 2008 4:16 PM
Reply to this comment