Craig attempts to change Guilty plea

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Again, though, this is assuming that he self-identifies as gay, whether way in the back of the closet or not. From what I have seen, though, I don't believe that he self-identifies as gay; I think he truly believes it when he says "I'm not gay."

I think skylark's failing to recognize that having sex with a man doesn't make you gay anymore than eating vegetables makes you a vegetarian.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Again, though, this is assuming that he self-identifies as gay, whether way in the back of the closet or not. From what I have seen, though, I don't believe that he self-identifies as gay; I think he truly believes it when he says "I'm not gay."

Agreed. In my optimistic hypothetical "coming out" speech I think am assuming that he would have some self-reflection that would require him to identify with being gay. I agree that in reality, he may be engaging in some denial games in his own mind to the extent that he can believe his "I am not gay" statement.

Also, to Sugar08, the risk of being lumped in with sex offenders is a danger... I don't think an insurmountable challenge, though. It isn't like he was trying to become part of an orgy or something beyond regular, gay sex... he was just seeking it anonymously, which is something I think any person might be driven to after a lifetime of denying yourself your true sexuality. It is just one more example of why homophobia presents unfair circumstances to closeted gay men.

I personally do not think the fact that he was seeking anonymous sex in a bathroom is all that odd (bear with me on this and read the rest of my post before attacking me) ... Heterosexual people (without horns or tails) seek anonymous sex, too, and quite honestly there are even "signals" used as well. I just don't think we immediately think about it because it has become (relatively) socially acceptable to meet someone in a bar, buy the other person a drink, etc. and then go home with that person. If the men who frequent the Minneapolis airport had a socially acceptable option to find sex in a bar with minimal judgment, who is to say that many of them (including Larry Craig) might be doing that instead of passing signals underneath a stall. Heterosexual people (from at least what I've heard) don't have elaborately signal-based bathroom sex, but maybe that is because there are other (relativelly) socially acceptable options.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I think skylark's failing to recognize that having sex with a man doesn't make you gay anymore than eating vegetables makes you a vegetarian.

Having sex with a man once? probably not

Having sex with men for over 30 years? While there are exceptions, I'm sure, I think most men who have sex with other men for decades are probably either bisexual or gay... although I do acknowledge that it is something everyone has to decide for themselves... maybe it appears that I am unfairly labeling Larry Craig without his consent but how else do you have a conversation about it?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by skylark

Agreed. In my optimistic hypothetical "coming out" speech I think am assuming that he would have some self-reflection that would require him to identify with being gay. I agree that in reality, he may be engaging in some denial games in his own mind to the extent that he can believe his "I am not gay" statement.

It might be denial, or it might be an honest self-assessment. He very well may see himself as a heterosexual who just likes a little same-sex action from time to time, or (put another way) a bisexual with predominantly heterosexual leanings.

I can think of a few people on the Hill who might have the potential of being good role models like you describe. But I don't think Craig is one of them.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It might be denial, or it might be an honest self-assessment. He very well may see himself as a heterosexual who just likes a little same-sex action from time to time, or (put another way) a bisexual with predominantly heterosexual leanings.

I can think of a few people on the Hill who might have the potential of being good role models like you describe. But I don't think Craig is one of them.

I don't agree that Craig, as he has lived his life up until now, is one of them either... all I ever said was that he had an opportunity to turn it around both politically and personally.

I also agree that him saying "I am not gay" might also be an accurate self-assessment... but saying "might" is not the same thing as saying "probably." Something about the situation, the fact that the rumors (both publicized and behind closed doors in Idaho) have been constant and pretty specific throughout the years tells me that is probably not the case.

Craig is someone who is from a small, rural Idaho town where there is probably not a single "out" individual, he loves politics and sought a career in politics, and (I believe) had to choose back in his earlier years whether to live true to his sexuality or true to his chosen career. If this is all true (I'm not saying it is... who could know for sure), it is unfortunate he had to make that choice back then, but now after gaining prestige on the hill and in Idaho politics, I think he had the opportunity to come out in a positive way and force a serious discussion in Idaho and nationally about sexuality.

[Sugar08]

Well, considering his involvement in anti-gay legislature, I think it's safe to say even if he TRIED to become a spokesperson for gay rights, it would backfire.

If Larry Craig were held to the standard of sexual conduct he imposes on the U.S. armed forces, he'd be out of his job.


Fourteen years ago, in his first term as a Republican senator from Idaho, Craig helped to enact the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Read the rest here.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

I don't agree that Craig, as he has lived his life up until now, is one of them either... all I ever said was that he had an opportunity to turn it around both politically and personally.

I also agree that him saying "I am not gay" might also be an accurate self-assessment... but saying "might" is not the same thing as saying "probably." Something about the situation, the fact that the rumors (both publicized and behind closed doors in Idaho) have been constant and pretty specific throughout the years tells me that is probably not the case.

Craig is someone who is from a small, rural Idaho town where there is probably not a single "out" individual, he loves politics and sought a career in politics, and (I believe) had to choose back in his earlier years whether to live true to his sexuality or true to his chosen career. If this is all true (I'm not saying it is... who could know for sure), it is unfortunate he had to make that choice back then, but now after gaining prestige on the hill and in Idaho politics, I think he had the opportunity to come out in a positive way and force a serious discussion in Idaho and nationally about sexuality.

This just requires so much assumption that I really can't agree . . . does having sex with his wife mean he's straight sometimes?

I mean, it was apparently pretty persistent sex . . . they had a couple of kids, and it's not like she left him . . .

Dan Savage, no matter what you think of him, has had great takes on this the last couple of weeks - mostly, that Craig is not behaving as someone who is gay-identified, but rather as someone who is straight-identified who also engages in same-sex play (for whatever reason - the thrill, some bi leanings, who knows - and we really can't make conjecture here).

Your arguments about closeting seem very specious or subjective to me - can you back them up with anything else? I guess I just don't think there's any one way to be closeted, therefore I can't agree this is any sort of "classic" closeted behavior . . . and making the assumptions you have (no "out" people, the role of small towns, etc.) is a limb I don't think we need to step onto, given Craig's voting record.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

. . . and making the assumptions you have (no "out" people, the role of small towns, etc.) is a limb I don't think we need to step onto, given Craig's voting record.

Coming from a small, rural Southern town, I would have to agree. Every such town I've ever known of had at least a few "discretely out" people -- although we never would have called them that. We'd just say, without little if any judgmental tone at all, "he's a little different." (Adding "bless his heart" is optional.)

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

they had a couple of kids, and it's not like she left him . . .

Not that I think it proves or disproves anything... but the kids were from a prior marriage or relationship and he adopted them.

Look here to verify: http://beta.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09....ap/index.html (fifth paragraph from last)

[skylark]

Also... just so that everyone is on the same page of where Craig came from in Idaho (and what I was meaning by small town)... here it is: http://www.city-data.com/city/Midvale-Idaho.html

Most recent population: 176... and really, midvale was simply the town closest to where Craig lived. His family lived on a ranch in the country.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

Also... just so that everyone is on the same page of where Craig came from in Idaho (and what I was meaning by small town)... here it is: http://www.city-data.com/city/Midvale-Idaho.html

Most recent population: 176... and really, midvale was simply the town closest to where Craig lived. His family lived on a ranch in the country.

This proves absolutely nothing, though, without making some pretty vicious assumptions about rural Americans on the whole.

I'm not prepared to make those assumptions.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This proves absolutely nothing, though, without making some pretty vicious assumptions about rural Americans on the whole.

I'm not prepared to make those assumptions.

Vicious assumptions? I was merely meaning that it would not be unreasonable to think out of 170 something people none of them were "out." I certainly didn't mean to imply any "vicious assumptions" and quite frankly am not even quite sure what these assumptions would include. Maybe that is because I don't live in a blue state and so do not hear what is said about us in what I've heard described as the "flyover states."

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

Vicious assumptions? I was merely meaning that it would not be unreasonable to think out of 170 something people none of them were "out." I certainly didn't mean to imply any "vicious assumptions" and quite frankly am not even quite sure what these assumptions would include. Maybe that is because I don't live in a blue state and so do not hear what is said about us in what I've heard described as the "flyover states."

What does that last sentence even mean?

I see your point much more clearly now, but that's not exactly what you said - in fact, you appeared (to me, at least) to imply that Craig's small-town upbringing would make it significantly more likely for him to be closeted, or that it would be much more difficult for him to come out because he's from a small town.

I've never lived in a small town, but you've never lived in this guy's town, so I don't really think either one of us is really able to comment on the likelihood of comfort with his own sexuality as a result, you know?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just think you're really reaching to make a fairly superfluous point (although I think it's in earnest).

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I've never lived in a small town, but you've never lived in this guy's town, so I don't really think either one of us is really able to comment on the likelihood of comfort with his own sexuality as a result, you know?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just think you're really reaching to make a fairly superfluous point (although I think it's in earnest).

Well, I've never lived in his town, but I spent a part of my childhood in a town only slightly larger than Midvale and I have actually been to Midvale, Idaho about 4-5 times in the last 2 years. Yes, that is sad even for an Idahoan, but it is right in between my home and another place in Idaho that I visit, so it happens to be the best place to grab a meal sometimes. I don't, however, think you need to have been to someone's home town to imagine that it would be difficult to come out in a small, conservative town especially if you would be the only one. I think it is kind of an obvious point to say that it is easier to come out growing up in a larger town/city because after you come out, there is at least an opportunity to be part of an "out" community. Sure that is a generalization, and there are always exceptions, but just because it isn't true all of the time doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to talk about it as a possible factor as to why Larry Craig might live his entire life in the closet.

And yes, it is a fairly superfluous point. It started out as one line about him and Al Gore that a couple people took issue with and I attempted to clarify what I meant by it so that no one thought "skylark thinks gay politics is like global warming" or "skylark thinks having sex with a man once is being gay" or anything else my posts were being rewritten to seem like. I am sorry that this thread somewhat got hijacked about this one line that really was just an optimistic fantasy about where the publicity over Larry Craig could have gone in a way that could have eventually maybe improved the climate in gay politics... and honestly I don't care that someone doesn't agree but I care about having a comment mischaracterized in order to be attacked.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

What does that last sentence even mean?

It means that I live in a state that isn't privied to hearing the things that you meant by "vicious assumptions." I find it funny to be accused of making assumptions about people that come from small, rural towns since I live in one of the states with small, rural towns that people make assumptions about.