Not necessarily! I’ve heard some pretty graphic “hit on” lines that could count as propositions!

I can see where Wilco is coming from, but the truth of the matter is that there is a major double standard between straights and gays in what’s considered “acceptable behavior”.

Has anyone seen that commercial for some TV station where a woman comes out of a stall, followed by a guy, and the tag line is something like “Adult programming for adults”? Why is that considered OK, but gay Republicans trolling for sex is wrong? Personally, it’s all wrong, but who’s listening to me? ;-)

It’s not right to have double standards such as this, but it’s the state of things. It will change over time, but it’s not going to happen overnight. Just as it took 100 years after the slaves were freed before the Civil Rights act was passed, it’ll take time for gays to receive the equality that straight people currently enjoy.

Tell the CIA lawyers that the American people and the World Community has the legal right to know the truth about the criminal activities of the CIA, and about the use of ‘torture’ by this criminal government contained in those tapes. Cover up is a crime, the destruction of evidence is a federal crime and torture is an internetinal crime!

Just for the record, being “hit on” and soliciting anonymous sex is completely different.

And for the love of me, I’ll never understand the interest in sexual activity in a public restroom (whether gay or straight).
I have a hard enough time just being in one.
Call it restroomaphobia.

Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 12:04 pm

Now you are in the realm of being just plain silly.

Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 12:04 pm

Let’s say that’s at least immoral if the supposedly “receptive” part is in a “weak” situation, and the hitter profits unfairly from that situation.

And the one judging if is unfair is the “receptive” person. If that “receptive” person isn’t receptive the hitter must cease and desist, because, if not, it’s the hitter is abusing the “receptive” confidence.

As in rape, simply.

So it should be a criminal act if someone hits on me at the grocery store since I’m only there for a pack of taco seasoning?

Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 11:53 am

Because not everyone is thinking of sex when goes to the restroom to dispose of a load?

Comment by Wilco — January 16, 2008 @ 11:26 am

Being gay is one thing, I don’t care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home.
A public restroom is a totally different matter.

i remember that “john doe” (or “jane”) was often used…
maybe not for the same application, but that’s how I took it…

i DO miss our joe sixpack… “correct me if i’m wrong…” :-)
…

both the daily show and colbert had me in tears last night…

I’m gay, and I’ve never felt the urge to search for anonymous sex in public restrooms. I think it’s more common for closet-cases to engage in public sex for two main reasons: 1) it’s anonymous and less likely to “brand” the inidividual with tha “fag” label, and/or 2) there is no established gay community for them to go and “be themselves” at a bar or restaurant or community center.

One time, when I was in the Army and stationed at the Pentagon, did I ever get “tapped” at by someone in another stall. He kept tapping his foot, and I was uncomfortable so I left. I told a friend about it and he said that was a restroom that was well known for “anonymous sex” hookups. I’ve heard of a number of restrooms and roadside rest stops that are “well known” for being anonymous hookup sites, but it’s never piqued my interest to intentionally visit them myself.