Jim B., I still am not clear on what you’re seeking to debate here. Are you suggesting that the majority of people do react differently to those two hypothetical narratives? If so, on what evidence? Or are you suggesting that the police just don’t do what you describe in your second narrative, but do do what you describe in the first, thus proving something about police prejudices? Or what? I’m not clear on this.
That is certainly part of what brings me to the conclusion that people simply think of gays in a different way. Plus you have to remember as a gay man I can’t help but notice homophobia (for lack of a better term) in almost every part of society. I submitted those two examples to see how people would react to them, because I am curious if people simply do view gays differently–even if they claim they don’t.
I don’t find significant differences between the two stories. In both, I think discouraging people from having sex in the public parks is a good idea, but I think actual jail time is going too far.
What I want to know, though, is what the dropping-the-pants bit is all about. This is rarely a part of heterosexual come-ons (Bill Clinton excepted), and when it is, it’s generally regarded as kinda gross. Do guys who meet in the bushes drop their pants for one another before any other sexual touching? Seems they could keep themselves safe from this sort of sting by a minute or so of swapping spit and friendly groping before dropping trou. I doubt many cops would go that far in their quest for an indecent-exposure bust.
Jim B., I still don’t see the issue. If there is a problem with gay men exposing themselves in the park, the cops are entitled to investigate and attempt to apprehend the perpetrators. Similiarly, if there is a problem with straight men exposing themselves in the park. Would you require that the police attempt to apprehend straight men exposing themselves when there are only reports of gay men doing it, in the interest of fairness?
Maybe the problem isn’t that people are more bothered by gay men exposing themselves in the park than straight men, but that more gay men are exposing themselves in the park than straight men are. Is there something inherent in being gay that makes exposing oneself in public necessary?
RTFirefly said, "Do guys who meet in the bushes drop their pants for one another before any other sexual touching? "
I think that only happens in prostitution-type scenarios. Which is how it happens in hetero-prostitution as well.
I think if people are being discreet in the bushes, it shouldn’t be such a big deal. Particularly if it is a park where most of the people are gay. Everyone pretty much knows what is going on, so what’s the big deal?
Um, yeah it would be a big deal-it’s called indecent exposure.
God, people, if you’re going to have sex, don’t do it in a large public place!
Um…NO, it’s not indecent exposure if no one sees it.
BUT, it’s in a public place, where someone is bound to get caught, and the police have every right to arrest them.
I’m not saying they should do it in the bushes at Disney Land, but if it’s a park where mostly gay people go, and sex-in-the-bushes happens all the time (as per the scenario), I don’t see it as a big issue. Yes, if they’re breaking a law, they will be arrested, but entrapment is a whole 'nuther thing.
Gay guy here, I really disapprove of cruising in parks. That might have ben necessary in the bad old days when gay life was completely underground, but nowadays it’s just tacky and only provides ammunition for the Christo-fascists like Sen. Santorum.
Well, maybe it is still necessary for people who aren’t out and having a hard time with public places like gay bars. Not being gay, I can only imagine, but I still don’t think it is such a big deal that police forces have to set up stings.
that seems a little silly, if it’s a public park. just because gay people (or straight exhibitionists, whatever) attend there, they should not thave the right to engage in behavior that discourages attendance of other groups. if it’s clearly marked off as a ‘gay cruising zone’ or what have you, that’s fine. but to assume that i should know not to take my kids there because it is a ‘known hangout for sex’ seems odd to me. if i lived anywhere near there, i’d expect the police to look into making sure the park was completely sex free.
like most of the folks chiming in, i don’t see much difference between the two scenarios. i think that it’s inappropriate to engage in sexual acts in public (and yes, in the bushes at a public park is public), though i have issues with this ‘sting’ operation, both in its methods and effectiveness.
You all have a point, but I still don’t think it’s as big a deal as drug dealers and gang bangers in the park. It certainly doesn’t warrant sting operations. And I think most people aren’t going to make a public spectacle of themselves. Just my opinion. I wouldn’t do it myself. My fear of getting found out is stronger than the desire for danger. 
I’m straight and consider myself pro-gay rights. I see absolutely no difference in the two stories in the OP. If you’re not supposed to have sex in the park, then you’re NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE SEX IN THE PARK. period. I fail to see how sexual orientation even comes into play.
I’ll just add another vote for hating the term homophobic for anyone who doesn’t actually have a phobia of homosexuality. I don’t think sexist quite works, as it already has a well defined meaning. What about gay-unfriendly or gay-intolerant?
Cheers, Bippy
b.t.w. I totally agree people shouldn’t be having sex in the park as that is in itself illegal. I just don’t believe sex should be illegal in all parks at all times.
Funny, I’m about as hetero- as one might find, and many of my first sexual experiences were in a public park. Not actually a municipal park, mind you, but a neighborhood park. These experiences were after dark, when little ones were highly unlikely to be around. We were very conscious of our surroundings, and any one approaching would cause us to halt any activities and “cover-up”. As teenagers, we really had no where else to go.
I can hardly believe that my actions were out of the norm, or somehow unethical (unlawful, perhaps). And I wouldn’t suggest that gays should be singled out in locations where they may choose to gather.
Now, if police target enforcement activities only at areas known for gay sex, and not straight sex, I have a problem with that. As long as prostitution is illegal, I have no problem with police cracking down where prostitution activities are causing problems in a given community.
On the larger question, as a member of the audience the OP targeted, I must admit that I probably have subconscious homophobia (although I don’t attribute it to latent homosexual desires at the root).
In college, a girl of my interest like to occassion one of the local (male) gay dance clubs. One night, in my desire to get into her pants, I agreed to meet her there. And I admit that I have never been so uncomfortable. I cannot remember a time when I have felt uncomfortable receiving sexual flirtations from women. Is that experience evidence of subconscious homophobia?
I don’t see the difference at all. They’re both unhealthy practices, mentally and physically. They’re also both illegal. The difference between homosexual and heterosexual cruising is that heterosexuals generally only meet up in the park, because they’ve got nothing to hide from 90% of the world. If a guy walks into a seedy motel with a girl on his arm, people look away. Homosexual cruising, by its very motivation, can’t do that nearly as often. Thus they mess around in the bushes.
Hence why police stings tend to rope it a lot more homosexual guys.
As for the homophobes being closeted homosexuals… there’s a grain of truth in that. I believe a study was done once in which two groups of straight men were exposed to lesbian, heterosexual, and gay male porn. They were divided based on extreme acceptance/hostility towards homosexuality. Those that were extremely hostile became significantly more aroused by gay male porn than those who were not. Obviously, this is hardly a clinching study, because arousal can also sometimes come about from factors other than lust. It does seem, however, to point that the homophobe stereotype has its roots in truth on some occassions.
If it was, then probably it was simply societal hatred working its way into your head. We all pick up at least a little of the attitudes that surround us. However, it could also have simply been lack of exposure to certain variations. We come with a built in tendency to fear that which we do not know, and it sounds like that covered gay people for you. The fact that you did not (at least from the information given) act out irrationally based on how uncomfortable you were would seem to indicate it was hardly a phobia.
Why should some pervs ruin it for everyone? (By pervs I mean people having sex in a public park-regardless of sexual orientation!)
I mean, why should I have to stay away from a park because I don’t want to see anyone having sex? I have a right to go to that park-if it’s a public park, most likely it’s funded by taxes.
As the old saying goes-GET A ROOM!!!
Priam, that study is rather suspect, insofar as arousal was measured with a penile plethysmograph, which purports to measure arousal, but there are questions as to whether tumescence is a good measure of arousal, and especially whether tumescence is a good measure of desire. There is, as of yet, no evidence to support any connection between the mere fact that a subject’s penis tumesces when the subject is presented with a picture of a naked man and any conclusion regarding that subject’s sexual preferences.
The study in question appeared in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1996, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 440-445. I wrote a paper on it when I took Psych 101 back in college. 