Is That A Loud Zipper, Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?

Nine men, including a mayoral candidate have been caught up in a men's bathroom sweep in a Daytona Beach mall. How does one amplify zipper noises, is it an iPod ap, or something?

As a way to attract attention from another interested person, the men either cough, sneezed, tapped their feet, sometimes under the stall next to them, or they made loud zipper noises, police said.

Among the nine were former Daytona Beach city commissioner and mayoral candidate Michael Shallow, and local high school teacher and athletic trainer David Behringer, police said.

All were charged with lewd and lascivious conduct, and exposure of a sexual organ.

Detectives were tipped off by Sears officials that sexual misconduct was taking place in its second-floor men's restroom.

Comments

[Les Nessman]

"... if you read the article, you won't find the political affiliation of Mike Shallow, the mayoral candidate. It takes some serious digging to find out that he is a Democrat."

It's nearly 100% certain that if the political affiliation isn't mentioned, then it's a Democrat.

[seekeronos]

"--- It's nearly 100% certain that if the political affiliation isn't mentioned, then it's a Democrat. ---"

Ain't that the truth!

Because if Mr... erm, Swallow, was a Republican... it would have been pointed out in bold-face italic red blinking 72 point type.

[seekeronos]

Scott said:

"---
For example, I'm bisexual, and I've been happily and faithfully married to a woman for 21 years. We're the proud parents of 3 great kids. When I said "cleave only unto her 'til death do us part," there wasn't a gender clause hidden in there.

I've never had sex with a man, but then I've never had sex with a woman other than my wife, either.
---"

Wow.

Sir, I applaud your sense of fidelity, to say nothing of your restraint compared to the typical American who has had multiple sex partners prior to marriage, and no small amount of married partners who have physically committed adultery.

I have my own doubts, however, as to where the "actual matrix of sexuality" lines up for much of humanity.

In short, I'd venture to say that most people are not 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual throughout their post-pubescent lifetime; in fact, I'd say that sexuality is not just some switch that gets thrown and set for life - whether in the womb or in early childhood, or otherwise.

It is a very complex thing that takes into account many factors, as well as exposure to corrupting influences. Bear in mind that I am talking about "innate" sexuality, and not necessarily one's proclaimed identity, nor his/her actual sexual sin.

Man is a fallen creature, and in his unregenerate state (and regenerate, too... if the regenerate man is not careful to guard his walk in Christ daily - Psalm 101:3) is prone to LEAP at opportunities to sin and defile the flesh.

This includes the sort of unnatural behaviour (call it bi- or homo- sexuality) that God abhors, and is the result of ignoring God, neglecting to give Him thanks, and worshiping not God, but created things as an idol.

Romans 1:1-18 sets the score on that.

[TheSpartan]

"Because if Mr... erm, Swallow, was a Republican... it would have been pointed out in bold-face italic red blinking 72 point type"

And had he been a Republican he'd have been mislabeled "D" on Faux News by now.

[Lala]

Time to play "guess the party" again

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/11/06/2-convicted-vote-fraud-ohio-no-mention-theyre-democrats

[rwilymz]

"For example, I'm bisexual, and I've been happily and faithfully married to a woman for 21 years."

????

"I've never had sex with a man"

Then you can't be bisexual.

You can only be bisexual if you have had sexual contact with someone of both sexes.

That's what the word means.

"In the final analysis, gay, straight, bisexual - these describe attractions, not just behaviors"

That is the self-serving bullshit generated by the gay rights activists who are attempting to manipulate the numbers in their benefit. Ask any [legitimate] social researcher the problems inherent in self-definition of the study group.

You'll find bisexuals who only has sex with the opposite; catholics who never attends mass; christians who don't believe in god. You can be a democrat who votes a straight republican ticket. A black -- pardon, an **african-american** -- whose ethnic roots are from Scotland and Norway.

Nosir. Not for a second. These definitions are measurable and MUST BE measurable if they are to mean anything. This is the largest problem with relevance and integrity suffered by the quote *soft-sciences* endquote. Essentially, sociology -- the study of society and its institutions -- gets no respect from the outside.

Frankly, it doesn't deserve any, and this was my criticism of it all the way through grad school.

Can you imagine a physicist using a random-length ruler to make his measurements with? What's an "inch"? Depends on who you ask. What's a pound? Depends on how skinny the researcher is.

No. That doesn't work.

You are bisexual if you have sexual contact with persons of both sexes, period, end of discussion.

"I believe that a major problem in the public dialogue/culture war (depending on perspective)is defining terminology."

You're correct. And you aren't helping by advocating slipshod definitions for inane reasons.

[seekeronos]

"--- You are bisexual if you have sexual contact with persons of both sexes, period, end of discussion. ---"

Interesting argument... I know several people who would get into quite the lather over that statement.

While we can draw a distinction between homo-, bi- or hetero- sexual behaviours and attractions... I do not think that the defining of sexual orientation/identity is pegged to whether or not the person has engaged in sexual relations with either or both genders.

That would mean that "Scott" (presumed to be a male) has (stated) an attraction for other males, but has never *acted* upon it; yet, as a male, this would not negate the funny looks he would get from stating "Jamie Bamber is hot" in the company of other (predominantly straight, if we took a d20 roll for sexual identity here for each of the assembled) males.

Let's crack open the dictionary (in this case, the Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary) at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bisexual ...

"----------------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry:
bi·sex·u·al
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)bī-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -shəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1824

1 a: possessing characters of both sexes : hermaphroditic
1 b: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes
2: of, relating to, or involving both sexes
— bisexual noun
— bi·sex·u·al·i·ty \ˌbī-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\ noun
— bi·sex·u·al·ly \(ˌ)bī-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wə-lē, -sh(ə-)lē\ adverb
----------------------------------------------------------------"

I'll go with M-W for definition 1b.

Because the insertion or non-insertion of sexual organs into the the bodily orifices or contact with the sexual organs of a person of either sex is not a necessary pre-requisite for sexual attraction to said person. Or even more lightly, the kissing and feeling up of certain desirable persons, without the exposure or experience of the nasty gooey naughty bits making contact.

Being something of a late-bloomer myself, or perhaps reserved by a combination of either virtue (heh!) or lack of boldness (closer to the truth) to put my hands upon some young woman then my age did not negate my sexual attraction to her. By RW's definition though, I would have been a non-sexual person until I finally had carnal knowledge of women.

Likewise, some men (gays) and women (lesbians) feel same-gender attraction for their own kind, but may not act on it out of fear of victimization or violence or fear of loss of status/rejection by family or local society (the "closet", although this is becoming less and less of an inhibiting factor)... yet, there would be not disputing their attractions.

Therefore, if a person has an *attraction* for, or a desire for members of either gender... then as far as M-W definition 1b goes... I'll define that person as a "bisexual". Non-practicing or otherwise.

"--- catholics who never attends mass ---"

I've known several "non-practicing catholics" for a great number of years, and while they may not be on the Pope's Christmas Card list, but if challenged about their faith, they will defend their faith with the devout ferocity as a schoolteacher nun wielding the Ruler of Doom™ in a 4th grade classroom.

[rwilymz]

I'll go with M-W ...

Dictionaries of popular usage are just that: dictionaries of popular usage. If enough people use the word "irregardless" to mean "regardless" then that's what it means ... its own opposite.

You don't go to popular usage dictionaries for specific legal usages of common words, and you don't go to popular usage dictionaries for specific scientific usages of those same common words. "Law" will probably have a scientific and a legal entry, but for both it would be superficial.

Sociology ... the study of society ... purports to be an "ology", a science, which is to say "the systematic and formal study" of something. You cannot have a systematic study of anything without measurements that can be repeated when you change measurer.

Yet Sociology thrives on inarticulate measurement.

Given a tape measure, you and I can both measure the distance from the garage door to the end of the driveway, to within a given margin of error. But since there is no formal measure of "feelings" or "attraction", we cannot be certain to get anywhere close to the same measurement of sexuality.

And Sociology not merely allows this and calls it science, but it LOVES this.

If you "feel" like you're Amerind then you are, regardless of your ancestry. If you "feel" like a republican -- or more to the point, an "independent" -- then you are. There are countless "independents" who have voted straight party tickets [on either side] for decades.

That is not "independence". That is lying to cover your partisanship.

When the definition of sexuality changes from person to person, then you cannot accurately measure it, and the "study" of the phenomenon becomes an opinion poll. That is not science. And a science which condones that is lying to itself.

Sociology, in fact, in its university form, spends huge amounts of time denouncing "objectivity". "Objectivity" is code for "status quo" and that would deny equality and would only marginalize the misfortunate and the habitually downtrodden.

...as opposed to "trivializing" the mainstream? Sorry, but just because a small group of people love to wear horse harnesses and pretend to be ponies doesn't make that an equally valid pastime to woodworking and gardening. It's self-marginalizing.

And the equivocation of the marginal with the mainstream is all post-modernist caca.

"By RW's definition though, I would have been a non-sexual person until I finally had carnal knowledge of women"

Correct. You would have literally been asexual, in the sociological meaning. Biology has a different meaning.

"I'll define that person as a "bisexual". Non-practicing or otherwise."

You'd fit right into the current haphazzard field of Sociology.

There is a point to studying the disparity between "feelings" and acting on same, but without a way to measure those "feelings" that can be repeated it loses relevance.

There's nothing sisnister about behaviorism.

"I've known several "non-practicing catholics" for a great number of years"

A.K.A. non-catholics or ex-catholics or lapsed catholics.

[seekeronos]

"--- as opposed to "trivializing" the mainstream? Sorry, but just because a small group of people love to wear horse harnesses and pretend to be ponies doesn't make that an equally valid pastime to woodworking and gardening. It's self-marginalizing. ---"

It makes them neither ponies nor very productive (as a redeeming value of something like gardening, woodworking, or a hobbyist brewing some beer). And I agree, it draws WAY too much attention to the (pony players) overall freakiness of their pastime. Like you said, self-marginalizing.

Regarding the "non-practicing" Catholics, I'll go with "lapsed". I'm sure that if I told one of those "non-practicing" acquaintances of mine that he was an ex-catholic or a non-catholic... he'd either laugh himself till he wet his pants, or he'd try to do me an injury. :P

"--- Yet Sociology thrives on inarticulate measurement. ---"

This might be why I never developed a particular interest in it. I can see where you are going with the exact definitions for homo-/bi-/hetero-/asexual, having a starting ground and a standard of measure is important in any discipline.

Yet those yuckier, subjective meanings tend to stick in a casual conversation with most folks regarding discussions of sexuality. For the same reason I might be at my peril for informing the lapsed catholic friend that his lack of practice has invalidated his catholicness, I reckon that not too many gay men (who might have just happened to have had one or two liaisons with females before discovering that they liked men better) would agree that they were, in fact, bisexuals.

[joeb]

How you gonna keep down on the farm after they've seen Volusia Mall?
Public rest rooms are a hazardous area. Is this a truly sick country or what?

[rwilymz]

"I reckon that not too many gay men (who might have just happened to have had one or two liaisons with females before discovering that they liked men better) would agree that they were, in fact, bisexuals."

That's why one of the more common of the denounced "objective" sociological definitions of sexual practice uses "...within the last five years..." as its qualifier. I forget the researcher.

I want to say Kinsey, but I can't ever find that in my notes. The "Kinsey Scale" we know today has either 7 or 9 steps [I forget and don't want to google] and no option for "non-practicing". Plus it goes off self-identity, which is the modern rationalization.

There's two questions in the measurable scale I recall from grad school:

1] In the past five years, have you had sexual contact with someone of the same sex?

2] In the past five years, have you had sexual contact with someone of the opposite sex?

Two yes answers means you're bisexual; two no answers mean you're asexual; one yes and one no either means you're heterosexual or homosexual, depending. And it allows for changing sexuality as one progresses through life.

For example, many teenagers, boys as well as girls, engage in same-sex activities from kissing and manipulating others' "naughty bits" [typically girls] to group masturbation [more commonly boys], and it rarely means there's any ultimate homo- or bisexuality in their future.

At any given time, on this scale, around 15% of the 'adults' in the population are asexual, some by choice, most by age/infirmity. ~2% are homosexual, 6-8% are bi- and 75% [m/l] are straight.

The old queens don't have to worry about being maligned by being thought of as bi- -- unless they had a recent recidivist relapse, as it were. And this is truly a major issue with them.

To a great many honest-to-god gays, bisexuals are considered "traitors" or fence-sitters. But since bi-s outnumber gays by 3 or 4:1, gays need their numbers to create a numerical relevance in the issue-mongering surrounding the whole thing.

"We're here, we're queer, we're 2-percent and that's relevant" doesn't quite have the same impact as "...10-percent..." does.

I still want to say it was Kinsey. M&J studied the traditional sexual practices more.

[Floyd Dobbins]

You don't account for trisexuals, those among us who like men, women and barnyard animals.

[seekeronos]

"--- You don't account for trisexuals, those among us who like men, women and barnyard animals. ---"

Heh!

I had always heard that particular derivation was "trysexual" as in "try anything once".

"--- ...gays need their numbers to create a numerical relevance in the issue-mongering surrounding the whole thing. ---"

That certainly explains the daylights out of that 10% fallacy. It seems to be creeping upward as well, Irecall reading somewhere that 12% was the official number.

Of course, that might be with all the Larry Craigs and Ted Haggards falling out of their closets in recent months. :P

[seekeronos]

"--- How you gonna keep down on the farm after they've seen Volusia Mall?
Public rest rooms are a hazardous area. Is this a truly sick country or what? ---"

I honestly have to wonder about sting operations like this. It was almost as if that sheriff or police chief who likes saying the word "scumbag" as often as he can shoehorn it into a press conference or other official statement had nothing else better to do with his time.

I haven't followed up recently, but last I checked, there really wasn't much detail about how all nine of these guys were rounded up.

Did they have an agent lurking in th loo for sevreal hours as each of these guys came in separately over the course of several hours to zippity-do-dah and tippity-tap?

Or did they somehow stumble on to a room full of guys using the facilities for their intended purpose?

Because a roomful of men playing tap-tap or in various stages of undress just seems to electrifyingly stupid to be real.

At the point you have... say, four or five folks... it stands to reason it is time to move th orgy to a more secure location where the local fuzz won't haul you in.

And for that matter, I'd like to see the "what not to do list", posted on the inside door of each stall in America... just in case I ever need to drop off a small but compact contribution into the Hillary Clinton Election fund someday in a public WC... and so I know not to risk being listed as a sex offender because I had to sneeze or fart while doing my doodie.

[Bubba]

I'll damned sure take my tap-dancing practice elswhere henceforth!