More Sex Ed(itorials): Voyeurism in NYC and Heterosexism in Congress

First, from yesterday's New York Times editorial page: Talk about an uncomfortable intersection between public space and sexuality! Peter Vallone Jr., NYC city council rep from Queens, is introducing a law that would create a penalty of up to $500 in fines and up to 90 days in jail for "ogling a person’s 'sexual or intimate parts' for more than a brief period." Aside from the obvious evidentiary and definitional problems (how do you prove someone was ogling, and how long is a "brief period" for exapmle), the Times opines that New York is a city full of exhibitionists and voyeurs, and that:

"Nobody wants some sicko drilling a peephole in their locker room wall or private hotel room. But this ordinance feels like something akin to outlawing wolf whistles from a construction site and, then, banning the corresponding hand signal from the street."

It seems to me the Times is missing the point. Street harassment is a real issue and it continues to be one of the things that restricts women's sense of freedom. I don't thik that Vallone's law is the answer, but I hate to see the issue trivialized as it is in this editorial.

If fining oglers $500 or locking them up for 90 days seems like the wrong answer to you, but you're concerned about street harassment or "unconsensual voyeurism," leave your suggestions for alternatives to Vallone's law in the comments below. Maybe we'll even take a poll about the best alternatives and send it along to the City Council!

Then, this morning, the Times editorial page weighs in on the hoopla over the Larry Craig arrest/scandal. They astutely point out that when David Vitter was caught patronizing prostitutes he was not asked to resign, nor was there an ethics investigation of his behavior, but Craig's behavior has elicited both of those responses from his Repbulican colleagues. It seems that it takes a same-sex connection to make a sex scandal an ethics issue. Cheating on your wife and patronizing sex workers isn't quite enough. This may not be just about heterosexism, though. The Times does point out that there might be a purely political reason for this:

"Certainly, no Republican called for the resignation of Mr. Vitter, who comes from Louisiana, which has a Democratic governor who would then replace him. Mr. Craig is from a safe state with a Republican governor."

The Times also questions why sex scandals have received more critical attention from congress than, say, financial scandals that are much more expensive and really much more troubling to the function of the government. Specifically they site Senator Ted Stevens, who has been investigated by the FBI for "quid pro quo" dealings with a government contractor.

You know, there is a big part of me that hates the feeding frenzy over the Craig matter. It's important to point out the hypocricy of folks like Craig. But do we also further stigmatize homosexuality and same-sex sex by painting these scandals as, well, so scandalous?

It's important to remember that it's the shame around the sex, and the hypocricy that often supports it, that is scandalous, not the sex itself.

__________________________

...because public space really matters!

Elizabeth