<p>OK, I now have to admit it’d be interesting to see the bathrooms in that B&B. :D</p>
<p>Coureur, the ACLU truly focuses on freedoms and civil rights – everyone’s, not just those of liberals. They act on the concept of “I may hate what you have to say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” It is a very impressive organization, not a liberal organization.</p>
<p>Showers are a great place for a co-ed tryst at Barnard. Oops! Bursting the bubbles of mothers who send D’s there to avoid boys.</p>
<p>Some of us, however, are vertically challenged. Plumbing problems again.</p>
<p>^^Exactly. Which is why Republicans and social conservatives should be applauding and not condemning the ACLU in this matter. It’s willing to go to bat for them too and not just for the poor, weak, and downtrodden.</p>
<p>If the ACLU were the unprincipled, God-hating, commie-lovers that conservatives often demonize it as, it should sneering and laughing at Senator Craig’s troubles instead of trying to help him.</p>
<p>“The privacy argument is just a technicality for a guilty person to avoid conviction but will not help Craig’s reputation at all”</p>
<p>I certainly agree that it isn’t going to help his reputation. But independent of whether this particular privacy argument has any legal merit, I don’t agree that a privacy argument (or any argument that a criminal prosecution was unconstitutional) is a “technicality” for guilty people. The Bill of Rights is not a technicality. The vast majority of privacy arguments in the criminal context come in the area of search and seizure. For example, it’s an extremely big deal that the police can’t come in and search your house without a warrant or an emergency. That brings tremendous benefits to everyone, whether you’re trying to hide marijuana in your house or not.</p>
<p>I don’t think the ACLU is likely to carry the day here, but I’m grateful that they pursue these principles so aggressively, even in the case of guilty liars like Sen. Craig.</p>
<p>If a person is engaging in either an inappropriate or illegal act in a “private” stall of a public bathroom (or in a “one-seater” public bathroom where no one else is in there at the time) isn’t it still an issue of either public indecency or an illegal act, or lewd and lascivious behavior,depending on what they did? Was the gentleman in the article below entitled to privacy?? [cleveland.com:</a> Everything Cleveland](<a href=“http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/119330475960930.xml&coll=2#continue]cleveland.com:”>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/119330475960930.xml&coll=2#continue)</p>
<p>What about George Michael? Was he in a stall or in an open part of the bathroom (anyone remember these details??) If a person is in a bathroom stall mainlining heroin, are they entitled to privacy? I just think that the argument is silly.</p>
<p>mythmom – follow me here for a moment. If sex in the toilet stalls is a protected privacy interest, could you contact the ACLU to try to expand this to the shower stalls at colleges that are state run (SUNY???) or accept government funding (Barnard, maybe?)?</p>
<p>If so, I could see an argument that being “vertically challenged” is a DISABILITY (?!) and the colleges would have to provide some horizontal contraption to allow you to excercise your --err–rights!!</p>
<p>If anyone has any ideas of the design of the contraption, we (I get part of the action [pardon the pun] for the idea) could patent it and make a fortune!!! mythmom, you might have to take early retirement (SUNY might not be happy about this), but what the hey.</p>
<p>Maybe we could get Arlo Guthrie to write a song about the “mythmom’s aquatic rights movement.” You’d be a folk hero–lying down for vertically challenged people everywhere!</p>
<p>Just an idea.</p>
<p>It surely is silly, Jym. It stretches the idea of “defending your right to say it” or privacy expectations so far as to be risible.</p>
<p>The “defacating wildly” choice of words was…interesting? I bet this is the first time in the history of the English language that those two words have been used in tandem.</p>
<p>LOL. Hm. My kids would be so mortified though. I got into plenty of gross out matches with D’s guy friends because my basic theory was if a 50 year old woman doesn’t know more about sex than a 17 year-old-boy something is wrong. D said she disdained my antics, but she kept bringing the guys around. </p>
<p>Our house was the hang out house until liquor came into the picture, and I wouldn’t let them drink. We live in a very hilly town. Car accidents at the corner of my 45 degree street and the main street galore.</p>
<p>So, it would have to be sotto voce or sub rosa.</p>
<p>07DAD: Your idea, you can run with it.</p>
<p>^^^ LOL, stickershock! Yeah, you caught that “defecating wildly” comment too?? As I said in post # 11, the visual it engenders in my mind is… well, you know. Ewwwww.</p>
<p>A few college dorm bathrooms have bathtubs. Not many, but I’ve seen a few.</p>
<p>That could be fun.</p>
<p>When my son lived in the dorms (at a state university – lots of government money), he often used to see four feet below a shower curtain in the supposedly all-male bathroom (especially on weekends, when people tend to visit from other campuses). They can’t ALL have been gay couples.</p>
<p>The issue for Craig is not whether sex in A restroom stall is private, but whether sex extending into TWO stalls is. ;)</p>
<p>Marian You can rest assured that they are not all gay feet. Emory 1968 things were changing and the dorms were open (to female guests) on the weekends. </p>
<p>I believe the slogan was: save water, shower with a “friend.” Makes me smile today.</p>
<p>mythmom: it cracks me up too when S and his friends assume that they have invented all things sexual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sadly, no. [Exhibit</a> A](<a href=“http://pl.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=Yfuy-eTbxIg]Exhibit”>http://pl.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=Yfuy-eTbxIg), [Exhibit</a> B](<a href=“DiaryLand members area”>DiaryLand members area)</p>
<p>How do you have enough space anyways?
And do you still do it if the toilet seat doesnt have a cover?</p>
<p>Are people familiar with the book “Tearoom Trade”,
by Humphries? It is a controversial book just about this subject, that I read for a sociology class in the 70’s. It was written by a Harvard grad student. His methodology was questionable. Are kids still reading it today?</p>
<p>Scatology, you must be thinking of a much older book, like de sade, mimi and Duke. The book I’m asking about was published 1970.</p>
<p>Another thread that should go the way of the dodo…</p>
<p>I guess it’s more fun to hate on the ACLU for pointing out a state’s common law and saying that a state should abide by it, than on the Minnesota Supreme Court of 38 years ago for having actually made the ruling about sex in bathroom stalls.</p>