Editorial from The Guide	Editorials Archive

Open up gay newspapers from across the country and you'll find stories about men arrested for having sex with other men in parks, toilets, sand dunes, and highway rest stops. The consequence of these arrests is often severe. At the very least, those arrested lose hundreds of dollars in legal fees and court costs, money spent plea-bargaining themselves out of even more serious-- often felony-- charges. Others are driven to suicidal despair after publicity means the loss of their job, estrangement from their family, and sudden exposure to terrifying homophobia.

View our poll archive

All too often, the gay press and gay political leaders act as though these men deserve what happens to them. They are seen as either trashy and embarrassing or closet cases who haven't earned the right to be gay.

Sometimes, though, good arguments are raised against these crackdowns on public sex. Objections to such arrests rightly note that they inequitably target gay men, that given pervasive homophobia the consequences disproportionately harm gay men, and that usually those arrested were trying to enjoy themselves unnoticed by others.

But almost always missing from debates about public sex are two key points.

First, police usually have to go looking for so-called "public" sex. In the vast majority of cases, police action is aimed at behavior that can be easily avoided by any who may find it offensive. Park and toilet arrests must be understood as another manifestation of homophobic oppression.

And second, the notion that sex is bad or dirty underlies the presumption that we need "protection" from seeing it or acknowledging its happening. But we do not need to view sex this way. Instead, we can think of sex as playful and pleasurable. And while most people seek complete privacy for their sexual activity, less discrete amorous couplings need not be seen as a moral crisis demanding police intervention.

Sex needs to be treated with the same rules we use for other human interactions, not set apart as something uniquely sacred or shameful. When any behavior, sexual or otherwise, creates a substantive and unavoidable problem for others, appeals to police power can be appropriate. People making lots of disturbing noise having sex could be told to quiet down or face the consequences of applicable noise ordinances. A passionate couple whose car is blocking traffic may suffer a parking ticket. The bush sex aficionados who leave behind condoms should be commended for their safer sex efforts but face the full wrath of our anti-litter regulations.

Most people probably are not comfortable with the idea that men may be getting it on with each other anywhere, much less in bathrooms and parks, but widespread unease does not justify legal prohibition. In some countries, men think they have the right to require women to cover their bare arms or face legal consequences. Not so long ago in this country, a black man holding hands with a white woman could provoke police action. Even today, two men simply kissing on a dance floor may lead to their arrest. In all these cases, the police-enforced prohibitions are not protecting anyone from real harm; they are upholding oppressive sexual values.

In reality, virtual all "public" sex is invisible except to willing participants or crusading busybodies. And in a healthier society, people would deal with the occasional sex act that really does reach public notice with laughter, embarrassment, admiration, ennui, or disdain. It should not be, however, any reason to call the cops.**

Editor's Note: This item appeared as the editorial in the January 1996 issue of The Guide.