<p>higherlead,</p>
<p>What is it that you don’t understand? Even if some “out” gay guys are doing it, it’s a tiny portion, just like small portion of straight men who are sex addicts. What is it you are trying to insist?</p>
<p>Sam…see post 23. I haven’t heard anything about it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2007/06/married-men-looking-for-sex-with-men-in.html[/url]”>http://www.advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2007/06/married-men-looking-for-sex-with-men-in.html</a></p>
<p>A sting at an Indiana park netted mostly married men.</p>
<p><a href=“404 Not Found”>404 Not Found;
<p>A sting in Louisiana got a lot of married men too, many with “children and grandchildren.” (Warning: Link has some clinical descriptions of the acts performed).</p>
<p>Something interesting I ran across while reading. Not only are homosexuals having sex or soliciting sex in public far more likely to be arrested than heterosexuals–their names and pictures are a lot more likely to make it to the newspaper then men arrested for soliciting women.</p>
<p>“Even if some “out” gay guys are doing it, it’s a tiny portion,”</p>
<p>And what is your evidence to support that statement Sam?</p>
<p>Let’s put sex back in the alleys and sleazy motels where it belongs!</p>
<p>Everything I’ve read about these sting operations, they do seem to net a lot of married men, divorced men, men with children and grandchildren. </p>
<p>Some of the people probably don’t have a fixed orientation–single or gay–but instead are attracted to the exhibitionism itself, and just lead whatever lifestyle is convenient for them. Much like the majority of pedophiles, who just want to harm children per se and don’t really care much about the gender.</p>
<p>But there definitely seems to be differential enforcement, with public heterosexual activity (Lover’s Lanes, etc) getting a wink and a nudge, and same sex activity getting pitchforks and torches.</p>
<p>good points conyat and very true</p>
<p>recently there was a program about being on the “down low” it is a much higher number than most straight men would ever admit</p>
<p>and being on the down low doesn’t just refer to one race, it is all enclusive</p>
<p>This issue about campus bathrooms has been going on for years. Below are links from 2003 from the William and Mary College student newspaper. I don’t know if they ever resolved it, but I know of one other university that had a problem very similar to this more recently. It is very disturbing to students. The quote below the links is from one of these stories. </p>
<p><a href=“http://flathat.wm.edu/2003-10-31/story.php?type=1&aid=4[/url]”>http://flathat.wm.edu/2003-10-31/story.php?type=1&aid=4</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://flathat.wm.edu/2003-11-14/story.php?type=2&aid=2[/url]”>http://flathat.wm.edu/2003-11-14/story.php?type=2&aid=2</a></p>
<p>Quote: "According to a second male studednt, a junior, such activity has been commonplace in the Campus Center restrooms.</p>
<p>“I know it’s a lot of older people, non-College students, but I know there’s some College students involved as well,” he said.</p>
<p>The junior said he noticed a one-and-a-half-inch hole in the stall wall and work-ordered it. He said it appears to have been punched out again.</p>
<p>The junior reported that on one occasion an older man looked over a stall wall as the student was using a urinal and invited him to join in sexual activity.</p>
<p>“That was not something I would ever expect from a bathroom,” the student said.</p>
<p>He also said that last semester he heard that some males would frequent the restroom during lunchtime to “mess around real quick.” He said the participants included students, men in their 30s and 40s and other non-student males, including a College employee."</p>
<p>If I were the student I would have reported the guy had an 18 inch cross in the stall. The Gene Nichol would have ordered the William and Mary Police to break down the stall door to find out if the sucker were praying in there.</p>
<p>I wonder what the university authorities are doing about this?
Quite frankly, I’d like to see someone block the stall door, keep the pervert in there, until the police come and arrest him.
I believe that if something like that happened to my oldest son, he’d lose it and end up decking the guy.</p>
<p>
It’s already clear in the 11/14/03 article. Way to revive this overhyped thread with an offensive title.</p>
<p>
Being a pervert doesn’t automatically make him/her a criminal. As the article said very clearly (did you read?), masturbating inside a stall or even making gesture isn’t illegal, no matter how disburting, inappropriate, or disgusting we think that behavior is. </p>
<p>
Then your son will end up in jail, not the pervert. </p>
<p>You posted at the beginning like this is funny; now you acted like a really concerned parent. Whatever.</p>
<p>
Nah, they know that those guys like their boys younger.</p>
<p>^^Reported and asked to be removed. Gratuitous, unprovoked and unnecessary.</p>
<p>Oh, now you are offended? After “pipe smoking” , “butt burglers” etc? Sorry you have such delicate sensibilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are these substitutions ok?</p>
<p>The problem here is Priests having sex with young boys in an inappropriate setting. Do all priests do it? I have no idea. Do a lot of priests do it? Yes. Is it a problem for everybody? Yes. Are there organizations that represent the Priest community? There certainly are organizations that purport to represent that community in their public documents. Do those organizations lobby against using law enforcement to arrest said Priests? Yes. Is that one of the reasons why Priests are not as respected as they feel they should be? Almost certainly. Do those facts make me a Priest-o-phobe? I doubt it.</p>
<p>Gratuitous, maybe. Unprovoked, hardly. Unnecessary - unfortunately not.</p>
<p>I guess I missed how the priest scandal relates to the subject of this thread – my bad. :(</p>
<p>I’m confused because I started the thread and it isn’t about priests…
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see- maybe the extrapolation from the behavior of small group of misfits who engage in deviant sex to indict an entire community?</p>
<p>Nah, that can’t be it…</p>
<p>“Nah, they know that those guys like their boys younger.” That was meant as an extrapolation? Okey-dokey.</p>
<p>No, the extrapolation is, as I said, to indict an entire community based on the actions of a subset of misfits, which you have been gleefully doing through out this thread. But when it is done in an analogous fashion to a community that you respect, you are offended and demand its censure.</p>
<p>If anything, this thread has been indicting generic perverts, since the men that get caught doing this come from all walks of life.</p>
<p>And before it gets brought up again, I have acknowledged that the title is offensive, did the report offensive post thing, all that…</p>