Great column this week by Rhonda Chriss Lokeman regarding the Larry Craig mess. She and her female friends have discussed it and agreed that you'd have to look far and wide to find a woman who would solicit (or have) sex in a public restroom. I have to say I've never considered it myself.
So I guess this really isn't about sexual orientation. Or is it just gay men who like a little love in the washroom?
Nah. Actually, researchers have said that a lot of the men hooking up in semi-public venues are actually straight, and looking for a little release with no attachments.
Which means that Senator Craig could very well be telling the truth when he states--with emphasis--that he is "NOT gay."
It's interesting to me that he saved his big boy Senate voice for denying (yet again) that he is a gay man. Shouldn't he be more interested in denying that he solicited extramarital sex in a bathroom?
Or does he believe that the one will follow from the other? As long as people believe that he's not gay, they'll believe that he wasn't soliciting sex in the men's room.
Or worse, they don't really care if he was trying to get a little something in the restroom, they actually only care whether he's gay.
Is being gay really more disturbing than being an adulterer? Or a hypocrite?