Andrew J. Miller, Indiana's BMV director was arrested in a public men's room yesterday. Yes, it was for what you might think.
Ever since License Branches were taken out from under the patronage system, they've been getting better and better -- and BMV directors have been getting into trouble. One of his predecessors had at least one drunken-driving incident and, if I recall correctly, served as BMV chief while not having a valid driver's license himself. It is as if there's an inverse relationship between user-friendliness of the BMV's storefronts and the luridness of the BMV director's private life.
In this incident, I am reminded of the failure of sociology to produce hard numbers; if they could prove letting gay men marry one another would reduce the amount of public-loo sex, I suspect such measures would have a greater success in legislatures and on ballots. There's no knowing if this is so; men in general seem to have more of a yen for quick and risky sex and when both partners are wired up for that, well....
--OTOH, and I know there'll be plenty of folks gay and straight claiming I am totally off-base with this and the participants rilly, rilly like it, but dang, how freakin' miserable must it be to be conducting one's dating life semi-anonymously in public lavatories?
There's been a lot of talk in the media about "National Coming Out Day" on the 11th of October. Look here, Andrew, a closet's awkward enough but a bathroom stall is no place to be skulking around.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
7 comments:
Well, trysting in public restrooms isn't a gay thing, it's a gay male thing; lesbians don't engage in it, by and large.
And I don't think that pointing this fact out makes one homophobic.
Conversations with an admittedly limited sampling of homosexuals leads me to believe that you re correct: A high percentage of homosexuals seem to be wired for self-destructive behavior.
Probably the most dreaded assignment in vice is public bathroom trolling. Such assignments are usually brought on by complaints about particularly problem locations.
Nothing like spending your shift skulking around some filthy stinking public restroom waiting to be hit on or unexpectedly felt up by another guy.
I guess the only remaining question is: "Was the commish trolling on HIS time or THE PEE-PUL's time?"
And quoting my Theist friend here: "God gave men a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to operate one at a time."
D. W.: it really seems to be the most closeted who do the riskiest things.
It seems to me that there's a subset of men who are sex/danger junkies. The straight ones are doin' hookers in their cars, the gay ones are in the loo, and they're all in the frikkin' bushes at the frikkin' park. --Indianapolis's lovely Holliday park had that problem for several years, 'til the police got fed up with the complaints and put guys on Montie's "most dreaded assignment."
Roberta, you may as you stated be somewhat Neo-Victorian, but your non-incendiary, logically questioning approach to this guy's arrest (refreshingly, the only non-hysterical reaction I've come across) made me decide to post a response.
You sound sincerely interested in knowing the real reasons behind certain behaviors, instead of the moronic pop psychology that emanates from the local television media and police department on this issue of semi-public sex (yes I'm aware of the poor court decision which defines just about everything in the U.S. outside of a dark bedroom under a quilt with the lights off as "public," but a true libertarian mind is interested in finding ways to expand freedom where possible).
Anyway, as a man over 35, (men under 35 or so have the online option for meeting that we didn't have when younger, and usually choose to meet in that highly time-consuming, but safer, way and don't often understand why someone would want to meet in a public place) I can shed some first-hand knowledge on what might motivate a person to meet others in "cruisy areas" (of course hetero people have cruisy areas almost everywhere: churches, stores, schools, the post office, just about anywhere).
And as someone who no longer finds it necessary to meet other people in "cruisy areas", I think I have some objective distance from the issue which allows me to be pretty clear-headed about it.
In the interests of honesty, I will admit I do know the individual arrested, and know him to be, ironically given the charge, a very DECENT man. And, no, I am not a Republican.
This guy has raised a lot of money for cancer research and made the BMV considerably more efficient. My question is: while I understand the short-term gain for society- basically for a few days a bored and angry public gets to throw stones at its latest Hester Prynne - is it perhaps a longer-term net loss for society that he probably will not be allowed to make these considerable types of contributions in the future?
Especially in light of the fact reported in the print media (but of course not the hysterical tv media) that the undercover cop reported the accused's statement to him that the double door of the bathroom would give ample warning time to ensure that no one would walk in on any activity? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
Again, if interested, I think I can shed some light on this issue that might cut through some of the politically correct, fantasized assumptions that surround it. If interested, I can post some more - I promise not to be so verbose the 2nd time around.
An interesting reply!
I would point out that if he'd been caught in an IMPD hooker sting -- as a radio DJ of my acquaintance once was -- or in flagrate-enough delicto with a real workin' girl, he'd've likewise suffered career implosion.
There are two factors at work here that probably only Mr. Miller could sort out; one is the whole howling mess created by closeting/social stigma that could understandably but not excusably lead a man in his position to be sneaking around and the other is the thrill-seeking aspect of high-risk sex. (Double doors notwithstanding, it's not without risk and not just from being caught).
As good as the work he's done running the BMV (etc.), does this indicate poor-enough judgment to make him unsuited to public trust? He's also vulnerable to blackmail as long as he's on the down-low.
If he can't confine his wilder side to fantasies and daydreams for even one term of office, if the use of his own hands ain't same-sex sex enough, then he needs to get out of the closet or get out of office. And I'd be of the same opinion if he was secretly a heterosexual polyamorist and got caught, too.
Post a Comment