Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Hot Sex

Senator Larry E. Craig is a conservative Idaho Republican who has on a number of occasions voted against redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples. He seems to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman at a time. He also seems to believe that marriage includes soliciting strange men in public toilets for sexual activity. He was arrested in June in a Minneapolis airport commode for just this proposition, and pled guilty to disorderly conduct. Now he's on TV recanting his plea. Hm. Every time I'm charged with a crime, I plead not guilty. To do otherwise would be perjury.

Similar charges have followed him throughout his quarter-century Congressional career. In 1982 he was accused of feeling up boy pages or somesuch. A Boise paper has just published a six month investigation of his alleged sexual inclinations. "I am not gay," says the Senator. Well, he should know.

Remember bill clinton? Wagging his chubby at us and saying ... ahem ... wagging his chubby finger at us and saying with stern assurance, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lowinsky"? Remember? Indeed, clinton did not have sex with that woman, as he equivocatingly redefined the meaning of the word sex in his head. Sex is intercourse, of course. He did not have intercourse with that woman. See? And there was no relationship with her. Truly. Because it depends on what the meaning of was was ... is is. Git it? There is no relationship [right now, at this very moment that I'm giving testimony] with that woman. When we're allowed to have secret definitions in our heads, we never have to lie out loud.

Is Sen. Larry E. Craig gay? Who the hell cares. I don't. I suppose his wife does, but she would have made her bargain with that devil long ago. We can only imagine the, uh, conversations that will be going on behind their closed doors. But we, we certainly need not care in the least about whether or not Craig is gay. We do need to care about whether he sucks the dicks of strange men in public toilets. It's not just that it's unhygienic, it's illegal. I myself have been known to engage in questionable behavior in public toilets. I once didn't wash my hands after urinating. I know, I'm dirty. But it was a long time ago, and I've grown up since then. I was six at the time. As for Craig, he looks to be in his 70s ... oh, he's only 62 ... hasn't been living clean, evidently.

Craig tapped his foot repeatedly outside the cop's stall, which means Let's have sexual relations in gay subcultural non-verbal argot. He ran his hand along the bottom of the partition, which means I want to fellate you. (Oh, the things I know.) That, as stated, would be unhygienic. But none of us are likely to come into intimate contact with him, say, kissing him, so we need not concern ourselves with his oral hygiene. Likewise, we need not concern ourselves with the apparent disconnect between his private -- or rather, public toilet -- inclinations and his public voting record in the Senate. Public policies such as gay marriage should have little to do with the bus station exploits of glory hole fetishists. The former has to do with principle and the values that one aspires to. The latter has to do with the darkest urges of a man's tormented spirit.

No, the idea that Craig is a hypocritical cucksocker is meaningless. We all have our flaws. We hope that they remain private. And that's the problem. Craig's judgment. His judgment. Judgment. If we require anything of our leaders, it must be that they display some sort of wisdom. There must be some indication of growth, over a span of, say, 25 years. Feeling up pretty page boys in 1982, and getting away with it, is one thing. But it's another millennium, and the behavior is unchanged. The behavior of getting caught. Aren't there bars for this sort of thing? -- where such conduct might even be legal? It's just stupid.

Craig likes weeners. Well, so do a lot of women. I like my own weener. Nothing wrong with liking weeners. And I'm at the point in my life when I don't have to worry about the legal conduct of other people. Tonight as I was rolling, there was a lot of chatter from some fellas about sex. Specifically, about two guys with one woman. Lots of debate -- you wouldn't do it even if she was really hot? ... you just know that somehow swords are going to cross ... that sort of thing. Really inappropriate. Frankly, it was a bit sickening. I have never had the slightest interest at all in sex involving more than two people, no matter the genders involved. It seems to be increasingly acceptable nowadays for guys to admit that they like watching lesbians. Yuck. Absolutely yuck. I honestly do not see the slightest difference between gay sex with men and gay sex with women. But I don't have to worry about it, any of it -- menages, or gay sex, or any of it. I'd prefer not to know about it, but if I do, I don't need to worry. The worst that would happen is that I'd lose respect for someone I like.

Yes, I do have a point. Hardly any sex should be made public. Talk is inappropriate enough, under most circumstances. Acting on it is unacceptable. And that's where Senator Craig is a hypocrite. So what if he's homosexual. That's between him and his wife, and God. So what if he makes an equivocal distinction in his head, about the difference between homosexual, which is a behavior, and gay, which is a political and social philosophy. Craig is a hypocrite not for these things. He is a hypocrite because he makes laws about social policy on the Senate floor, yet he breaks similar laws in public toilets. That sexual sin is taken into the body, and is therefore more damaging, more dishonoring -- that's a personal matter. Alcoholism or drug abuse is likewise damaging to the body and the character and the mind. God cares about these things, so that strangers don't have to.

Men can fall. Men can fail. We might meet such failures with forgiveness, when we see repentance. But repentance isn't a feeling. It's a behavior, of turning away from the troublesome act. In the absence of such change, forgiveness of consequences is inappropriate. Who will change, without consequences? But the senator's soul is not our affair. His judgment is, and he has demonstrated criminal judgment. He will resign. Of course he will. In private life his fetish will be a matter for local law enforcement, and we need have no feeling about it. It will not affect us, any more than the countless other anonymous sexual encounters that take place between lonely and self-loathing people in parking lots and under park bushes and in vomit-smelling alleyways.

Why does sex have to be so hard? Without temptation, we'd all be good. With it, we can at least tell who has good judgment.


No comments: