Let’s go back to the 1960s. A time of Richard Nixon, moon obsession, hippies, the Vietnam war and… no ethics committees.
Born in Oklahoma in 1930, Robert Allan Humphreys was a man of many disguises. Ordained an Episcopalian priest in 1955, Humphreys changed his name to Laud after William Laud, a seventeenth-century Archbishop of Canterbury (he was very holy).
Humphreys followed the traditional 1960s path…got married, got kicked out of the church and started a PhD in sociology focussing on male-to-male sex in the St Louis area public restrooms. Then he destroyed a picture of Nixon and got sent to jail for 3 months where he was offered an academic position (naturally!).
This just got a little more interesting.
In the days of keeping up appearances and things being illegal which definitely should NOT be illegal, there was more homosexual activity happening in public restrooms (otherwise known as “tearooms”) than anyone cared to hear about.
But Humphreys was determined to understand exactly what was going on, who was doing what, and why. He wanted up close and personal details.
Now, being a professional and someone sincerely dedicated to the betterment of humanity, Humphreys began conducting some serious research. This included going undercover as a “watch queen”, gathering data on the who, what and when and eventually gaining the confidence of some of the men he observed.
12 months later, Humphreys pops on a disguise and rocks up to the private homes of a bunch of his original “subjects” claiming to be a health service interviewer, interviewing them about their marital status, race, job and so on.
Oh, did we mention he found them by sneaking a peek at their licence plates outside the tearooms and asked his police buddy to run the addresses? Minor detail.
Could Humphreys have gone about his research in a more honest and less invasive manner? Yes.
Did Humphrey’s findings have the potential to threaten the social standings of the men whose extremely personal information he collected without consent? Absolutely.
But, although Humphreys may not have had the most above-board ethical approach, he has since proven to help move humanity in the right direction.
Following his investigation into the tearooms, Humphrey’s publications helped legitimise American gay and lesbian studies within sociology and challenged the notion of homosexuality as deviance. It also led to fewer men being arrested for having consensual sex. Pretty good, no?
But the question on everyone’s lips is, does the end justify the means?
SOURCES:
Sociology Professor accused of beating student NY Times June 10, 1968
OBITUARY Robert Allan Humphreys; Priest, Author L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES AUG. 26, 1988
Humphreys, Laud (1930-1988) by Stephen O. Murray
Biography - Source: Stephen O. Murray, "Humphreys, Laud (1930-1988)," An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, & Queer Culture, http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/humphreys_l.html, last accessed June 20, 2007.
Laud Humphreys and the Tearoom Sex Study - Dr. Joan Sieber, Visiting Research Scholar, The Kennedy Institute, 1977-78, and Professor of Psychology, California State University, Hayward
Ethics I metal health research case study: The Tearoom Trade Study James M. DuBois
Laud Humphreys and Research Ethics
Babbie, Earl. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy; Bingley Vol. 24, Iss. 3-5, (2004): 12-19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330410790849
Editorial Introduction: Moving Beyond the Controversy: Remembering the Many Contributions of Laud Humphreys to Sociology and the Study of Sexuality
Schacht, Steven P. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy; Bingley Vol. 24, Iss. 3-5, (2004): 3.
America’s Toe-Tapping Menace - By Laura M. Mac Donald Sept. 2, 2007
Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places RA ‘Laud’ Humphreys (1970)
PRIOR EPISODES MENTIONED
-
Will 00:00
It's a huge question, of course, for all researchers. If we've got data that's not super ethically collected, should we use it? Is it is it valid? Is it real? But what if that data makes a huge change in society? What if, in that project, we find out things that actually make a huge difference to millions of people's lives? Doesn't make it ethical. But maybe there were questions worth asking. Enjoy.
Rod 00:34
From the New York Times, excellent, good, good. Good. June the 10th 1968.
Will 00:40
Moons coming close.
Rod 00:42
Yep. The moon is gonna hit us.
Will 00:44
Ahh hippies.
Rod 00:45
Yep.
Will 00:46
Richard Nixon.
Rod 00:47
That is all that's all three headlines from the front page.
Will 00:51
Richard Nixon and some hippies are going to the moon.
Rod 00:54
The moon is coming closer to us. Washington University. The faculty committee of the Washington University began an inquiry Into the alleged assault of a grad student by Professor Alvin Goldner.
Will 01:08
Oh, no.
Rod 01:10
I mean, we see it all the time. Now, if it was less common back then.
Will 01:14
We don't see it all the time.
Rod 01:15
Imagine you're working with its professors beating the shit out of grad school. I just think the professor at the time was the max Vabre. Not Weber, research professor of social theory now, okay. He was also the former Chester of the sociology department. It's gonna catch on. He was extremely well published very, you know, renowned. And apparently very frank in his views and criticisms of others. He didn't pull his punches.
Will 01:42
He told people what was going down according to as Max Weber chair, that's what I know.
Rod 01:48
Okay. Yeah, the view of Alvin is, that's bad, that's good. So anyway, the student he allegedly bashed was called Robert Allen Humphreys. Humphreys was a former Episcopalian clergyman who was completing doctoral work in sociology, right. I mean, it's a scenario here all the time. You know, the former Episcopalian clergy who does a doctoral work in sociology gets bashed by professor. I mean, if I had $1
Will 02:11
happens a lot. Really? It does not want a lot. It does not happen.
Rod 02:14
No, probably never. So Humphreys claimed the student that gardener attacked him the month before striking him repeatedly and even threatened to kill him.
Will 02:24
That's not good.
Rod 02:25
No. Goodness attorney because of course, the professor doesn't speak for himself. He said, Look, yeah, Goldner and Humphries exchanged harsh words. Okay, there was harsh language. Yeah. Fruity talk. Maybe. Humphries then tried to push the professor out of his office. According to the attorney,
Will 02:42
hang on Humphries, Humphries is the student tried to push the professor out of his office
Rod 02:47
out of this out of the professor's office.
Will 02:48
So you get out of your office?
Rod 02:50
How dare you sir, the details weren't?
Will 02:53
It's not the usual way that a fight goes. I mean, unless you're like, let's take it outside. And I'm going to push you outside to get outside and then we can fisticuffs because in here, it's a push and fight out there. It's a fight and fight
Rod 03:04
how to how to sociologists fight? I'm not really sure.
Will 03:07
I just thought usually, usually if there's some sort of confrontation, the professor is trying to get the other person out of there office.
Rod 03:14
You think so? Professor or not, if someone's fighting you in your office, you get them out? Not get outed. So he tried to push me out of the office. He claimed that he'd acted in self defence because and Humphries actually hit him. So as you'd expect, you know, he hit me you hit him blow bullshit.
Will 03:30
He said. He said, Yep. Students said professor said exactly. Yeah, that's not a thing that we want to drill into.
Rod 03:38
So why was there this tension? What was going on? What Why would they have done this? The professor said it was because they're anonymous posters.
Will 03:44
You want to give me a chance to guess? I thought his car parking place or sociological dispute, or over a lover
Rod 03:53
car parking is the furthest away. Okay, so the other two are closer.
Will 03:58
He had the sociology professor had proved God doesn't exist.
Rod 04:01
No, no done that they'd all done that. That's already that's already known. So professor said there were these anonymous posters around campus. That quote, portrayed him as an example of the species into Alios. Platonic or silver tongue tie priestly bird.
Will 04:17
Okay,
Rod 04:18
now of course, we all know what that means.
Will 04:20
No, I'm just thinking this the poster is needs a little bit of a sociology degree to unpack, not a great poster.
Rod 04:28
But apparently everyone in the department would have caught the reference to Gordon his recent book, enter Plato, classical Greece and the origins of social theory. I mean, duh
Will 04:38
everyone would have got that if they'd read his book. I'm amazed.
Rod 04:41
They didn't. You're quite you're well educated.
Will 04:43
I think spoiler. Potentially, potentially sometimes the last people to read someone's book might be in the same department. Like they might be like, I know you have a book, congratulations on your book. Look at your cover your cover,
Rod 04:55
nice cover. Put a copy on my shelf. Please give me a free version. The poster was quote "satirical, if not exactly witty", and the quote runs about the bird given to nesting in high places, this raptorial bird may soar to great heights before diving to feed on carrion, he chews on thoughts only when personalities are not available while devouring his prey his song is said to be quite eloquent. So you know, of course, if that had been about me, I would have been mortified
Will 05:24
sings nicely while chewing on the thoughts of the student.
Rod 05:29
Yeah, chews on thoughts only when personalities are not available. Now that would take another three episodes to unpack what the fuck that means.
Will 05:36
I feel it is fairly niche,
Rod 05:39
but these are late 1960s sociology. Okay, so why would someone put out this offensive piece of work? Goldener apparently had published an article in the American sociologist and he criticised the methods of some sociologist in their research on deviant behaviour. Not for doing deviant behaviour research but their method.
Will 06:00
It's a method to check. Alright.
Rod 06:02
Goldener the professor had suggested that these researchers were more interested in their own professional advancement than in the plight of the drug addicts and other deviants they studied. And that some of the methods were dishonest and immoral. To be cool.
Will 06:16
Okay. Okay. All right.
Rod 06:18
You look more worried.
Will 06:19
No, no, I'm not more worried. I'm the same worried I was before. Look, I just gotta say there's a little suspicion in my brain that there might be some methods here where people are doing some form of research, taking them under cover in ways
Rod 06:32
Don't know what you're talking about. I think you're reading too much into it. So Humphries apparently was mad, according to Gordon, so the student was mad with the professor according to the professor because this was an unfair personal attack on leading exponents of what some called underdog sociology. And also it was an oblique attack on certain members of the sociology department at the University of Washington University, including Humphreys, the students advisor, Leo rainwater. Feel like it's a made up name, or else it's it's indigenous, and I take it back. Goldner has had also called Humphries a peeping Parson and said, look, the only reason you attacked me with these posters or whatever is because my my article made you angry.
Will 07:18
Right? Okay. Okay.
Rod 07:19
So after this assault, Humphrey spent 24 hours in observation in hospital. But then he was out. And Goldner apparently at the time, the New York Times article was written had a warrant issued against him, charging him with assault with intent to do great bodily harm. But I couldn't find out whether he was actually convicted I think he probably wasn't because the nice no story went further that said he was convicted. So it sounds like he's probably just just a mere beating without conviction. So the question is, why was this so much animosity was it just academics being you know, precious little trinkets because, you know, delicate feelings got hurt. Yep. What kind of deviant behaviour are we talking about an underdog sociology? And also, what did he mean when he called Humphries a peeping parson?
Will 08:10
Welcome to the wholesome show, a podcast that loves to sneak a peek at the whole of science. We do.
Rod 08:17
We do.
Will 08:19
I'm Will Grant
Rod 08:20
I'm a Roderick G Lamberts
Will 08:22
Tell me about some underdogs. Underdog sociologists.
Rod 08:26
So Robert Allen Humphreys, the student and he was born in Oklahoma in 1930. So as a while ago, his mother was called Stella and that's all I know. Okay. His father was called the IRA and he was a wire chief for Southwestern Bell so I assume that something to do with telegraph wires or something.
Will 08:46
bell telegraph telephone. wires.
Rod 08:48
Wire. he was a wire chief. He was later elected to the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Cool. So it's Polly. And one source only found one source had said this, but they were pretty adamant. After Iris death, Humphreys discovered that his politically reactionary father made regular trips to New Orleans to have sex with men providing an example of secret homosexuals donning what Humphries would many years later call the breastplate of righteousness
Will 09:14
it would be a troubling thing to discover. Well, just in the sense of having been lied to throughout your life, but I know that there was more of the lying to back then about these things
Rod 09:27
Yeah we don't lie these days. We bred that out of us in the 21st century. So you found out after his father died that he was taking side trips to dabble in ways that were not considered appropriate at the time,
Will 09:40
while even the doubling, I think the side trips? Yeah.
Rod 09:45
So Humphries himself graduated from high school 1948 He went to college in Colorado in 1952. Then he went to the Seabury Western Theological Seminary in 1955. That's when he took on the name of Loud, from a chap called William Loud who was a 17th century Archbishop of Canterbury.
Will 10:11
He's doing like a pope move. he's Benedict I am yeah, I didn't think he did that out of the seminary
Rod 10:18
He did, because he was an ordained as an Episcopalian priest in 55. And he took on Loud as His is priests name is Episcopalian priests name.
Will 10:26
What's your priest name?
Rod 10:27
Jesus. Fuck it.
Will 10:31
Priest Jesus. Father Jesus. Father God.
Rod 10:36
Step it up.
Will 10:38
Do they let you do that? Do they like is there a list and there's for sure vetoes? He can't, can't have Hitler can't have Jesus can't have father Buddha. That would be confusing
Rod 10:47
certainly can't have the N Prophet
Will 10:50
No, you can't can't that's that would be confused. And that would be cheating and also not God.
Rod 10:53
I go straight to Jesus because you know, why not? So he changed his name to Loud. Now he adds it so becomes like a Loud Humphries and this is commonly known as Lord Humphries. And as soon as the Lord not loud because it'd be too German. So he took that name and 55 became a priest. He worked in a bunch of parishes in Oklahoma, in Wichita in Kansas and apparently riled up powerful members of the congregation's with radical attacks on privilege, including racial privilege
Will 11:19
Oh, that sounds good.
Rod 11:20
So as an outspoken chappy
Will 11:22
don't tell me he's gonna turn into a baddie because I like I like this guy right now.
Rod 11:25
I would never do that to you. So 1965 years later, Loud marries Nancy Wallace. You know, Nancy, and after then he was then dismissed from Wichita, his post as a preacher, dude, I don't know why I assume you just piss people off too much. He made the powerful, feel sad or bad. So 1965 He starts his PhD in Sociology,
Will 11:46
okay, like he's a priest, but he lost his his perch
Rod 11:52
so is that the uni Washington union St. Louis, or St. Louis? So His research focuses on male male sex in the St. Louis area public restrooms.
Will 12:01
So he's, he's thinking, I want to know what dad was doing. I want to I want to I want to know,
Rod 12:06
and this is known in the in the, as they put it gay slang of the area that known as tea rooms, tea rooms.
Will 12:13
I haven't heard that term.
Rod 12:14
Would you like a cup of tea? I would. Ah, it's not what I was expecting. Fair enough. Ultimately, his PhD was published as a book in 1970 called Tea Room trade, in personal sex in public places. And he got a lot of attention.
Will 12:28
I was just wondering then how much coverage of this this world had happened to before?
Rod 12:34
Look, not a shit tonne. I not in any other way. Other than, you know, the court reports. Yeah. Okay. Because, you know, obviously, you would be arrested for evil on various. A lot. That was the most common offence people.
Will 12:51
I don't know, law in law in America at the time, but I
Rod 12:56
Still illegal. Yeah. illegal. But also it was in public. So double illegal. You know, you're in a public restroom.
Will 13:04
You're not behind closed doors. You're not at home. Yep.
Rod 13:07
So the book got a lot of attention. Some of that was very positive. So it won an award the see right Mills award from the Society for the Study of social problems. Okay. That's pretty cool. Yeah. Some of it was less positive.
Will 13:21
Is this attacking the book or the practices described in the book?
Rod 13:24
Why just pick one? Yeah. Why?
Will 13:27
Not not only as the people hating on the practice, but also you shouldn't you shouldn't study this. Oh, and write a book or any of those things. Don't do any of those. And then some, thanks, like thinking too narrowly. I always just love when people go, I'm so angry at this phenomena, that I will take anyone surrounding even even if they're neutrally trying to just show that it happens. I don't want to know that it happens. I don't want it to happen. No, and I don't want it to happen. I don't want anyone to find out about it.
Rod 13:55
I don't want to understand it. Most common critics seem to be or outright denunciation stemmed from the methods he used to get his data. Okay, more on that in a minute. All. So 1970 This is you know, his book had been published that year, he got a teaching job in Southern Illinois University. So is chugging along, in the middle of May that year, he led an anti war demonstration, and they invaded as they put it, a draft office board, Draft Board Office, it makes more sense
Will 14:22
anti Vietnam war
Rod 14:24
got grumpy about the draft. And while he was you know, busy in the office, he destroyed a picture of Richard Nixon. Okay, so you guessed Nixon would come in and you can't not this not only got him arrested, but it got him sentenced to 12 months in prison for destroying government property.
Will 14:39
You seriously get 12 months, four months for destroying a picture of Richard Nixon?Jesus Woah. And the whole point of the presidency system is you're not like a magic monarch, who is gifted by God to be there
Rod 14:56
Oh, but a photo of you is obviously a photo.
Will 15:02
12 months in prison Yeah,
Rod 15:03
but it's cool it's cool because you did a plea bargain so
Will 15:06
Nixon's an asshole. yeah there's that parallel here of of people stopping traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, climate protest and and people saying oh, you can't interfere with people's way of life and I love you know, this way of life is people being in traffic as like, you know, it doesn't have to be doesn't have to be
Rod 15:47
also, the point of protest is interference. Just call me picky. So it's cool that he did a plea bargain in any sort of three months. 1972 He's doing this but while he was
Will 16:01
guilty to poster destruction, three months,. three months worth of poster destruction rather than 12 months.
Rod 16:02
What if I admit it? I did it. Okay, three months in fucking jail. But why while he was in jail, he was hired by Pitzer College. And they are they are one of the Claremont Colleges in Southern California. So they're a little consortium of seven colleges that basically their mission says they're diverse characters of diverse and character culture, blah, blah. Basically, they're the kind of hippie integrative we give a shit about humans and interesting ideas. research teaching, the whole thing. So he gets hired while in jail which I think is excellent
Will 16:39
hired while in jail to do what? Mark papers?
Rod 16:43
Professor dude like to be an academic
Will 16:44
Can you teach from jail?
Rod 16:45
Course you can. Use 1972 Zoom. Yeah. Did you shouting through can through string
Will 16:51
goddamn though, if if my professor was in jail, I would turn up to those lectures safely via zoom. I would be all over that. I just like yeah, I have jail Professor Cyrus the virus is teaching me something. Or Nick Cage. That's my idea. I am imagining. That's what's happening in Dale, I'm going to be taught by this person.
Rod 17:13
That's also the buffest professor you've ever had.
Will 17:16
I told you this is why sociologists have the bikies of of the research world.
Rod 17:20
I don't think he was in like the shittiest Alcatraz prison. I think he's probably in the prison farm prison. He's probably making candleholders. sniffing patchouli oil and making potpourri. So yeah, it gets hired while he's there.
Will 17:36
Is that your imagination of what happens in prison farm? They're making potpourri?
Rod 17:41
I hope so. organic, vegetarian, delicious food.
Will 17:48
Except in Norway. All prisons in Norway are basically
Rod 17:51
yeah, they're better than being out of prison. Everyone's gonna know just get jailed. It's garbage. So 1972 Well, he's got his job, etc, which is great. He publishes a book called out of the closets, the sociology of homosexual liberation, which is one of the first scholarly accounts of the emerging gay lib movement.
Will 18:13
Can I just ask? He's married? Isn't he?
Rod 18:16
Yep. Two kids.
Will 18:17
Okay. Is he off the community at all?
Rod 18:21
Don't know. At this stage, it's unclear. . It's unclear. It could be that he is or he isn't. 1975 he issues a two year study. 111 Murdered homosexual men, I believe it was men. And he concluded most of the killers were heterosexual who had a fear or hatred of homosexuality. So that's tops.
Will 18:52
And, you know, I don't know if you're going to cover this. But the number of the number of those murders that just went unexamined, unprosecuted got what they deserved. And police around the world. I mean, I know here in Australia, but I know in other countries, just just, whatever, you know,
Rod 19:10
I'm not saying they had it coming, but they had it coming.
Will 19:15
I can't believe that we weren't great. We haven't really done systematic inquiries. I mean, probably needed to do it 20 years ago. A lot of those cops are probably dead now. But Jesus those cultures
Rod 19:30
Not great. So that was a another one of his studies, which was a big deal. 75 But the biggest splash was the tea room trade book. That was the thing that really gained attention. So let's talk about that. So the full name of the book again, Tea Room trade, impersonal sex in public places. Impersonal because they're quick hookups.
Will 19:48
Yeah. Impersonal Okay. In the sense of, you know, you don't know the person. Yeah, sure. This person is still the person.
Rod 19:57
If you don't know someone that doesn't mean they don't people
Will 19:59
like Anonymous I'd take
Rod 20:01
or I don't know if it's anonymous could see someone. we're not talking glory holes. We're talking fully visible.
Will 20:09
Yeah, okay. Yeah. Well, okay, so to each other I mean, but they don't know each other's life story
Rod 20:14
That's true. I think that's what I mean by personal like that the point is to have a root and that's it. Yeah, no, that's no other detail. So according to this very official source, and I build into more official sources, I think than I ever have for an episode before Tea Room sex, aka fellatio, in public restrooms
Will 20:29
no you got to tuck that in normal words.
Rod 20:31
I just think fellatio is such a funny word. I don't care what it is. That's for the Australian audience and Americans, blowjobs
Will 20:43
Thank you.
Rod 20:45
So apparently, this is this tearoom, sex accounted for the majority of homosexual arrests in the United States as I mentioned earlier, yeah. When people were busted, it was usually for impersonal sex in public places that
Will 20:55
because a crime and it shouldn't be but but but because it's out in public, and it's a place where police can police
Rod 21:01
and that one of the arguments was well, but it's in public, so you know, poor innocence could stumble upon it, and therefore we are corrupting the universe. So Humphrey is recognised that the public and law enforcement authorities and really all society had really simplistic views and stereotype beliefs about men who, as they put it commit impersonal sexual acts with one another in public restrooms. So he realised that it would be of considerable importance if society gained more objective understanding what let's just work out what's going on here. Who's doing what and why and who are they?
Will 21:31
whether we are judging or not let's let's understand
Rod 21:33
Let's personalise it, let's make them humans, not dirty buggers who hide out in toilets. And so he wanted to know ultimately, you know, like, why these dudes are motivated to see quick impersonal sexual gratification. They just want to have sex and leave. in and out get on with it.
Will 21:49
What could possibly be there reason?
Rod 21:51
Impossible to know. So that's why he did his PhD research to turn into the book, Tearoom trade. let's have a look at the methods.
Will 22:00
See, to me right now he sounds like good guy. He killed a picture of Richard Nixon went to jail for and he's protesting, he's shining light on on an area of society that needs protection and
Rod 22:15
why would he not continue to be a good guy you
Will 22:18
threatened me with this methods thing.
Rod 22:21
I just mentioned methods and waggled my hand.
Will 22:24
Tell me what he did.
Rod 22:26
Two Phases. One was participant observation. The other was structured interviews. Phase one, he stationed himself in tea rooms, and he offered to serve as the watch queen. Okay, which is the person who basically keeps watch and coughs will make noises just to let people who are waiting for whatever know that maybe a police person is here or new people are turning up. Just like someone coming back be be aware.
Will 22:52
Yeah, sure. Sure. Look out.
Rod 22:54
Yep. And he would pass himself as a voyeur, which is in this case, one who derives sexual gratification from observing the sex acts. So he was allowed to watch acts that occurred in the bathroom stalls that didn't have doors.
Will 23:12
Did he identify what he might be doing? Did he have a typewriter with him
Rod 23:17
on a string around his neck
Will 23:19
or a little clip in his hat that says press, journalist. out of the way, man, press
Rod 23:26
No he didn't do that. He said I'm a voyeur. And I'll be the watch queen. I dig watching. Thanks for that, and I'll keep look out. And he gathered data like on the locations that happened, the frequency of the acts, the age of the men, the roles they played, whether, you know, top bottom up down, whatever, and where the money changed hands. Okay, I don't think it commonly did with that detail.
Will 23:47
But he's gathering that
Rod 23:47
he's gathering all this data. He also never disclosed his role as a researcher.
Will 23:55
researches just do that, you know, you know, I get there might be times when you can't tell you know, you're observing a crowd, like you're out in public and want to see how crowds moving
Rod 24:08
Excuse me. I'm a researcher
Will 24:10
You can't do everything. Well, this is this is a scenario where there's not very many people. And it doesn't hurt to just
Rod 24:17
who are we to judge? Oh, yeah. academics who do research and ethics committee members. But apparently, he did play the role of watch queen, mostly faithfully, like he did the job. He didn't say he was a he didn't
Will 24:29
at least that part of the transaction he is doing he's not he's not he's not secretly whistling the cops or anything like that.
Rod 24:34
Yeah. Oh, no, he's not doing that. He's not he's not getting these dudes in trouble. He was mostly playing the role of the watch Queen well, but there was a moment in phase two where maybe that may have wobbled a bit we'll get to that. Um, so he basically gained the confidence of some of the men he observed. He then told him he was a scientist. And he persuaded them to tell me about the rest of their lives and their motives, etc.
Will 24:54
Close but not quite there
Rod 24:58
It was worth noting that Apparently that most of them who were prepared to talk about it tended to be among the, as they put it better educated members of the tea room trade. So the folks who were more aware of the signals, the habits, the practice.
Rod 25:13
So that's phase one, phase two, follow up interviews. So he realised this is a bias sample,
Will 25:19
just pausing for a second and recognising how vulnerable these people are, in the sense that not only not only with the police, with violent homophobes around your and also potentially I imagine many of them in heterosexual relationships as well. And that there is an element to this that is all clandestine
Will 25:41
Not an element. It just is.
Will 25:44
Yeah. And, and how, you know, they are so vulnerable here,
Rod 25:49
potentially very much so
Will 25:50
in this time in particular.
Rod 25:52
Especially,there's no question. So in phase two, he realised he wanted to, quote, avoid bias. So this is where he may have, you know, shirked his duties a bit as a watch screen because he'd pop out and record the licence plate numbers of the people who were busy.
Will 26:10
Okay, why
Rod 26:12
so then it seems I'm not sure if this is common practice or if you had a buddy in the police,
Will 26:16
What's he doing like a social network study? He's like, he's like, I can spot these licence plates today. And then these ones
Rod 26:23
so this is a slightly naive and very ethical view. He went to a buddy in the police force and got their addresses.
Will 26:31
Oh, no, no. Also, going to your buddy in the police force,
Rod 26:40
I assume was a buddy. It was very ambiguous, but it seems like it was easy to find this out
Will 26:46
I know that we've been told by all of the cop shows that if you just need you got a buddy, you just call up. Can you just run a plate for me? You know,
Rod 26:53
I'm a PI. I used to be in the police, one of those still likes me.
Will 26:57
I've watched a cop show. Can I just run some plates?
Rod 26:59
Can you run the plates? Exactly. I think it was even less difficult.
Will 27:05
But it's also sounds like they're bored. And they're like, sure. Yeah, I I'm sitting here at my computer. Why do you want some more plates while I'm here? I'll identify all of them.
Rod 27:16
I don't know what these 1968 computers were like.
Will 27:19
There's only like two number plates back then
Rod 27:20
Filing cabinet, he's going through the cards. So yeah, he found out their addresses, which is cool. Because he was planning to do interviews with them. 12 months later, he turns up at their house. He claims to be a health service interviewer and he asked him questions about marital status, race job, etc.
Will 27:44
You know, you gotta just like go slow on this because because, you know, as you imagine as a researcher, you're like, This is a detective story. I want to understand this, this issue this thing in society, I won't understand what's going on. And I can see all of the leads in front of me I will follow all of the leads. You turn up at someone's house.
Rod 28:06
But see, there's a concern that if people recognise them, if you turn up they might be freaked like he's going to blackmail me all that sort of stuff.
Will 28:15
legitimate concern
Rod 28:16
he thought about that. He's not a monster. So he disguised himself he changed his hair colour and wear different clothing.
Will 28:25
fake moustache. That's all it needs.
Rod 28:27
all I had the image in my head was when Cartman is trying to act like a grown up and he's standing on the on the shoulders of two other Southpark kids and a giant greatcoat with a huge moustache going Excuse me, sir, I've come here to represent
Will 28:38
AI. Researchers researchers out there, you know if you're in this moment where you're suddenly like, okay, okay, I need to disguise, slow down. Pause for a second. Really, at this point, talk to a few people
Rod 28:53
if this just go through this process if I needed disguise..
Will 28:59
I do like that there must be some legitimate occasions in which a researcher is allowed to wear a disguise
Rod 29:05
the effect of disguises on apes.
Will 29:07
Nice, nice. I've dressed up as an ape. You don't tell if I'm an ape or not. Yep. As a supervisor of researchers just loving the idea that someone would say Okay, So stage one. I will wear a disguise.
Rod 29:19
Phase two. Aren't you worried they might be scared you're gonna blackmail them? Don't worry, don't join. I've got a plan. I'm dye my hair magenta and I'm going to wear a flamboyant vest
Will 29:28
I mean I dream of a world where we can be weirdo researchers doing that kind of stuff it's like it's like your was the story of you told ages ago of Isaac Newton going undercover as a coin detective.
Rod 29:43
Against forgers. Yeah, exactly.
Will 29:44
I am so down with that for the fun of it.
Rod 29:49
those bad boys aren't yours Isaac Newton? No, who does not have this glorious moustache? That could be anybody. Nay sir. Isaac Newton was a clean shaven gentlemen,
Will 30:00
I look, I know I want to wear more disguises in my job. I remember like this many, many years ago, I tried out for a spy agency. And I think they saw me walking in the door. Not you, buddy. No, no, no.
Rod 30:18
It's part of the problem. The moment you walked in, everyone looked at you. I'm here to spy on me at a spy. Look, I'll do the same.
Will 30:27
I recognise that it's not a good fit. It's not a good fit, because it's not them. It's not that it's not me. It's not me. It's not them. you know, all our knowledge is to know thyself. And it's like, there's a nice bit of learning.
Rod 30:45
So he did all that. And he does say, Oh, look, I was very careful to change my appearance, dress and my automobile from the days when I was passing as a deviant. So what did he find? He did all this research, what did he find? It destroyed stereotypes very quickly. So this research destroyed stereotypes about what kinds of people or what kinds of men were participating in the tea room business.
Will 31:10
So this stereotype before was like
Rod 31:12
dirty gay deviant.
Will 31:19
What's our separation here?
Rod 31:21
So there's this and we have this now today as well, the men who have sex with men but don't identify as gay and otherwise live.
Will 31:27
So gay, bisexual, gay being identification, whereas men men also preference I just want to have sex with dudes, whereas a lot of men who have sex with men being a behaviour rather than rather than so so we're, we're examining, recognising the difference between behaviour and identification. Yep.
Rod 31:43
And indeed, the rest of the lifestyle too. So just over half 54% were married, they live with their wives.
Will 31:49
That's what I thought. Yeah.
Rod 31:50
And they were on superficial analysis, exemplary citizens with exemplary marriages. exemplary marriages, that's the only language they used
Will 31:59
So in 1970s marriage, I assume included happy marriages,
Rod 32:03
totally happy because I've always stoned I knew could bang anyone. those parties in the sunken lounge rooms with coffee tables that also had pot plants in them.
Will 32:12
Not everyone in the 70s got to have. you remember, those were the fashion forward houses of the 1970s A lot of people were still living in like 1940s houses that
Rod 32:20
no no, we had the terrarium coffee table and everything was a pottery and would pet fake wood panelling. I still love it.
Will 32:29
beautiful. the sunken lounge room.
Rod 32:31
Ah, I'd have one tomorrow with a thick fuzzy carpet.
Will 32:36
You know they're so they're so dumb. They're so dumb architecturally but the idea
Rod 32:52
I just want to listen to podcast just like you listener. Remember to turn on your noise cancelling 38% were clearly quote, neither bisexual nor homosexual.
Will 33:27
Hang on. Were clearly neither.
Rod 33:30
That's what they said they weren't bisexual or homosexual. So clearly, I assume heterosexual.
Will 33:35
clearly identifying as heterosexual
Rod 33:37
Yeah, well, as best as I could tell, here's how they described their men whose marriages were marked with tension. Most were Catholic or their wives were. And since the birth of the last child, the quote was conjugal relations had been rare. Yeah, so at least half of us is Catholic. We've had kids, why would you sex anymore?
Will 33:57
There's there's things to unpack in there.
Rod 34:00
There really are. And they of course, they still wanted to have the sex. And what they needed as an alternative apparently was it had to be quick, inexpensive and impersonal. Just like get in and get it done. So they didn't want any kind of involvement that would threaten their as it was put already shaky marriage and jeopardise their most important asset, their standing as a father,
Will 34:19
so they they don't want to risk their their marriage, their house, their father, those kinds of things. So they're invested in their, their public life, they're not the and they're looking for a form of sex that doesn't cost, doesn't come with complications
Rod 34:37
is basically this is a nice phrase, they wanted some form of orgasm producing action that was less lonely than beating off and less involved in a love relationship.
Will 34:47
Bit judgmental.
Rod 34:47
You don't have to be lonely when you're better off having to do it at work like a normal person.
Will 34:51
Or as or as the proud boys say, you can beat off if you're within nine feet of a consenting woman
Rod 34:59
within nine in feet of the consenting woman, nine feet or more or nine feet or less,
Will 35:04
it's nine feet or more is not a thing
Rod 35:07
or just nine feet. Exactly, not otherwise no touchy.
Will 35:13
Think it's nine feet?
Rod 35:14
exactly nine feet. Yeah, just under three metres, then you are allowed. So the other 62% The ones who are neither bisexual nor homosexual. Close to half of them were clearly bisexual. They're happily married. They will educated they were economically well off exemplary members of their community, but they were bisexual.
Will 35:34
Can we just clarify here in in the sense of publicly identifying, or?
Rod 35:41
I'm not sure whether publicly because it wasn't the time to be doing that. But I assume this is this is taken from interviews and chats.
Will 35:48
So I'm just I'm, I get that the terms that we use change over time, because of the ways we think about different sexualities and the laws around them. And there's you could probably quote characterise as as public facing and private and, and it's so so in that sense, are we saying the first group are not really into men, men having sex with men, they're not really into men know that they're looking for the quick orgasm. Second group here. They're into men, but they're also into women.
Rod 36:22
What half of that second group roughly a little bit less than half were into both. Well both at the time, I know there are other versions. Same amount, so 24% of the 62%. A smaller group. Again, they were single, and they were covert, gay, covert homosexual. And only 14% of the whole lot would, as they put it correspond to society's stereotype of homosexuality. They were members of the gay community. And they were interested primarily in homosexual relationships.
Will 36:55
So these are the people that would publicly identify in their lifetime.
Rod 36:58
I want to be with another guy that was 14% of all the people in the study.
Will 37:04
I'm fascinated to understand how these people correlate with our current communities. Yeah, because obviously, obviously, there remains some covert, covert for different sorts of reasons. People that are gay, but we have so many more people that are like publicly and that's all so different to the world back then
Rod 37:27
entirely. And so this of course, this was these results were humongous in the early 70s. Mind blown. Do you wanna know how it was received. Responses.
Will 37:38
Oh God.
Rod 37:40
Immediate straight up responses. Obviously, ethics might have come into it.
Will 37:43
Oh, my God. Yeah. Okay.
Rod 37:44
So serious questions. Well, false pretences. Obviously phase one, just lying, or not, rather, not declaring that you're doing research. Yeah. And also, there was then in phase two, implicit coercion, because he's going after back a year later, basically, I saw you doing things that you might not want to be identified as doing. And I found you through your licence plate numbers.
Will 38:06
And while he may think he's not doing that he is doing that.
Rod 38:09
Yeah. Look, he certainly didn't intend to
Will 38:14
Imagine the knock on your door. You're like, where do I remember you from? you see something from work down at the beach, and you're like, suddenly, I can see your nipples. And it's very different. It's very different. And it takes a little while to go. Who are you again? You're oh, it's the thingy project
Rod 38:35
I normally see with pants.
Will 38:36
Yeah, exactly. But it takes a little while. I imagined it would be horrifying to react that
Rod 38:42
there were issues, but it turns out, I mean, this is no surprise to anyone who is us, at least, there weren't any ethics committees back then or institutional review boards as the US calls them. So the proposal for his research was only reviewed by his PhD committee. And the other members of the department only heard about it after it was done.
Will 39:01
Oh, oh, they didn't do some sort of product. This is what I'm gonna do. Cool. No, apparently not. Oh, look what I did. Look at it.
Rod 39:08
Yeah, look at my student ID. So you'd be amazed to hear that there was a bit of a furor. people were very mad. They said he unethically invaded the privacy of people threaten the social standings of of them, they still called them subjects then, of course, still, so these folk petition the president of the university to rescind his PhD. That didn't happen. But that was the petition. It also apparently, as it was put, there are numerous other unfortunate events as a result of the turmoil including a fistfight among faculty members, and about half of them left. They said shit, we're out of here.
Will 39:39
Wow. Yeah, half of them that seriously we've tainted the school so much.
Rod 39:44
Yeah. Or the way it was handled. They couldn't keep their name attached to it. The chancellor was outraged and sought to have his degree revoked on the grounds that observing sexual felonies was also a felony.
Will 39:56
Not with you Chancellor, I get the the lack of ethics in doing it.
Rod 40:00
So he kept the degree but the chancellor managed to hold up a major institutes of National Institute of Mental Health grant that went to his supervisors,
Will 40:08
I'm gonna go slow. Yeah, hold it up. This will teach you.
Rod 40:12
I think that might mean stopped. But it's not clear from the sources I read. So deception, of course, was a big issue. This is, you know, one of the big sort of push backs. And there's a long article, which is in the show notes by a guy called Earl babby, who talks a lot, there's a lot of articles that go back and refer to or unpack what this study meant. Yeah. And the implications,
Rod 40:32
I bet you could do this research back then, ethically, you could absolutely go and say, hands up, I am a friend of the community. I would like to understand more so that the rest of society can understand more, can I talk to you? It's not like it would have been impossible to do this in a way that is ethical, even in a time when when the practices are illegal,
Rod 40:59
I would have thought. So obviously, Bobby and others is reflecting the views of many folks, deceiving subjects is always an ethical issue, but we should probably level with people if we can. And the bigger issue is that he unpacks or, you know, does the research actually justify the deception? And if it does, will the people be hurt by the deception? So these are fair questions. Is there justification and will people get hurt? And we would ask these questions today. Then after it's done, you would ask whether the potential value was actually realised, and whether subjects were actually hurt. Fair questions. Bobby's conclusions, though. So a number of ethical issues that are still agonised over today were brought up by this issue by this situation. And he reckons it's more important that we grapple with them than come up with hat answers that don't process context and detail. And I'm torn on that, because I can see that sometimes it's, it's important to have codes, but maybe if we just follow as he puts it, established canons of ethics, they degenerate into ritualism. So you don't start to consider the nuances.
Will 42:01
okay. I don't know if that is true.
Rod 42:05
he wants to get a bit excited. He wants to get a bit too loosey goosey.
Will 42:08
Maybe codes, give you some guidelines. And if we suddenly discover there's a moment where we go, okay, there's a question the code doesn't answer. Or maybe the code might be wrong. Let's have a chat. Absolutely. But let's let's not throw out codes and say we can do it all ourselves.
Rod 42:20
And it seems he's got somewhere in the middle. And look, I take his point. And he says also, of course, this is a great case to use for students to say, Okay, let's pull it apart. Yeah, totally. The most publicised objection was violation of privacy. No surprise. So there was a journalist called Nicholas Fon Hoffman. And so some of the people in the sociology department who were pissed off, fed him information about this very quickly. I went like, look what happened. This is garbage. We hate the way they've handled it. Fuck this. So he was very loud about his critique. And he said in an article, we're so preoccupied with defending our privacy against insurance investigators, dope sleuths.
Will 42:55
is that like cops looking for if you're smoking the cones?
Rod 43:06
I'm gonna say yes.
Will 43:07
And insurance people.
Rod 43:09
Yeah. Counter espionage, man.
Will 43:13
He's gone. He's gone to a bunch of weird things that reveal something interesting about his life.
Rod 43:17
Divorce detectives. credit checkers. We're so obsessed with that, that we'd forget to over to look into social scientists behind their hunting blinds, who are peeping into what we thought were our most private and secret lives. Are there they are studying us taking notes, getting to know us as indifferent as anybody else to the feeling that to be a complete human involves having an aspect of ourselves that is unknown. And he's outraged by these sociological snoopers. Yeah. And that got a lot of traction. Yeah,
Will 43:50
Look, an aspect of ourselves that we all should get to choose our privacy. I like that we will have public and private lives and we should get to
Rod 43:59
I'm an open book. But most people reactions from the tea room and wider similar communities. So people more broadly and more closely associated. Some are upset because they thought these public these findings that were published in a paperback so very accessible, presented to the average man with a how to manual. because there's, there's a very rich code of behaviours to make sure there are no mistakes made.
Will 44:23
So there must have been hundreds 1000s if not millions of men who were thinking, God, I want to go and do some tea room. Yeah, but I have no idea. I don't know what the rules I don't know. Here we go. It would be impossible to know this unless I found a book and look. I know, I know that there actually are some nervous Nellies about a whole bunch of things who would say I'd like to read a book before I go and do that thing.
Rod 44:50
look, in this instance, it seems reasonable to because there really is quite an elaborate code, because I want to make sure that no one has accidentally Yeah, a cop is not also just if a dude's just got Want to need to have a poo? Yeah, sure, sure. You don't immediately go How about a blow dryer today is like no serious. I just want to have a poo. So there's code and movements and signals it is it is not quite a secret society but
Will 45:10
it's it's a secret community where Absolutely, there are codes that are designed to protect people and keep the tech everyone in however everyone however it does. Also, I assume a community that does recognise they need to, you know, welcome new people.
Rod 45:26
Yeah, and I don't know how that works
Will 45:27
impossible to know.
Rod 45:30
Is this tea room? I don't think that would work.
Will 45:33
maybe, I think I'd feel extra weird if I've got the paperback book in my pocket. And I'm flicking through like a translate. Okay,
Rod 45:39
the first knock three times? Yeah, rob the bottom of the store with the left hand, not the right hand. It gets very elaborate. So there was some concern. Of course, there was a lot of the accusations they blur, it's hard to say this taste with the subject matter in general, how dare you research something so disgusting? Of course. So you know, and as one author puts it, you know, he wasn't just studying sex, but you know, observing and discussing homosexuality and not people in caring relationships, homosexual other eyes, but you know, daring to just go and have a root.
Will 46:07
are they saying they're not caring. At no point did you say they're not caring. You said they're impersonal
Rod 46:13
I'mnot saying that this is one of the one of the many authors there, they're not happy. And that and they were saying also that perhaps if if this research had been done on those because of the outcry, or what if the research had been done the same way, but on members of the kk k, or a flying saucer cult or whatever, they the people who have seen the subject matter bother people more than the way it was done, suspected that if it wasn't on such a publicly distasteful set of behaviours that maybe that wouldn't have been so beaten up and abused, but at the time, homosexuality was a big deal. So positive so there was an informal inquiry that was published about 1970. So it's suggested that hump that Humphries research had helped persuade police departments to stop using their resources to arrest people in a victimless crime, like stop busting people for this you assholes. And this research seem to anecdotally at least have contributed to that. And many within the gay community also welcome to because a lot of police districts they showed decreased raids and wireless arrests for sodomy,
Will 47:14
but really so so after this, the police backed off a bit what they became a bit more
Rod 47:20
in some areas these police may have been directed to.
Will 47:23
okay, but they went from, you know, stereotypes of you know, that they're horrified stereotypes to okay, there's, there's, there's normal people
Rod 47:32
some of these folks are actually okay. Well, no, but not perfect, but it's still dehumanises at least some of the you know, the subset but at least the broader benefits are everyone maybe you got a little less persecuted and bashed and look, many would say this is a social benefit and loud, loud himself. Mr. Humphries. Sorry, doctor. He said it was good because his study and other people reported on this it dispelled the myth that the men he was studying with dangerous social deviance. Now, I have mixed feelings about this because apparently, this was good because quoting he found that most were married to women and had children. Only 14% were exclusively homosexual and identified as gay. So only evil social deviant. Yeah, so pros and cons on that. Yes,
Will 48:18
yes, you're getting some of the way but not all of them.
Rod 48:21
Don't worry. It's okay. They're not all horrible, pervy nasty folk, you know, like,
Will 48:26
not perfect, on a journey. I think this is a step in the journey, but it certainly didn't get to the
Rod 48:34
Also, Loud himself, he wasn't a monster, like he recognised the need to protect the confidentiality of his data, okay. He never published anything that included identifiers. He protected his notes carefully. When he also said he knew that he was observing illegal behaviours so that if he was subpoenaed, he might have been arrested and imprisoned for refusing to hand them over. Okay. And he said he'd always assumed he would refuse. But after he'd spent some time in jail after smashing up tricky Dickies picture, he sort of doubted how long it'd be able to hold out because prison sucked. so he's realistic about that. He's like, I'll try.
Will 49:09
I'm not sure that level in 70s America of torturing people for number plates.
Rod 49:14
I don't know. No, for trashing tricky. I'm finding no, for refusing to expose data that would
Will 49:20
I know, but the number plates is the data. Yeah.
Rod 49:23
Well, I know the whole files after you done the interviews, he would have tried to keep those protected. Anyway, it was it was a an issue. Legacy wise, as you kind of suspected, Loud was actually a gay man.
Will 49:37
I wondered. Yeah.
Rod 49:40
So he was actually a gay dude. But at the time when he was doing this work, he was married with kids and he wasn't out.
Will 49:45
So so he would in those categorizations he would put himself in the sexually attracted to men. Yeah, and wanted to publicly actually go public not not bisexual, bisexual and not that gay to people that were heterosexual but looking for release.
Rod 50:05
Yep. So it was he was a gay man. He is not he was he's dead. He was a gay man. But at the time was doing as I said, he was married, he had kids, and he was living in a world where that would have been less easy to beat. So 1974 He's at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, and there was a session on labelling. And there was a speaker called Edward Sagarin, who apparently published a lot of homophile advocacy. So you know, pro stuff under a fake name. homophile advocacy was the term used. But he was he was criticising sociologists for hiding behind the safety of their wives and children whilst advocating that lesbians and gay men came out of the closet, you say, You hypocrites, you're hiding behind your stuff, and you're saying other people should come out?
Will 50:54
Okay, he was grumpy about it, potentially some of them might be heterosexual but saying, people if, if we could be nice to everyone,
Rod 51:03
He was just like, Look, you wusses come out, stop, stop hiding behind your wives and children. So Loud had been in that room. And he just he figured that, because he dedicated to his wife and children that book, maybe cigar and had him in mind as one of these people was hiding. So there was a formal discussion section. And he very clearly said, I don't want to be accused of hypocrisy and duplicity. I'm a gay dude. So came out and came out. my suspicion, it seems like that was where he first properly came out. But like, I'm not positive.
Will 51:39
the stories of coming out vary still, obviously, and, and in general are probably getting easier. Younger kids these days and things like that, in general, but obviously not exclusively, perfect. Oh, my God, you know, coming out in such a public matter. Like you have to come out in a giant forum like that in the Senate
Rod 52:00
for him though, at least it wouldn't have people would have. I don't think people would have gone. I had no idea that list would have gone, Alright. I'm not surprised, given the work you've done.
Will 52:08
Just to pause for a second you're going to cover the psychiatry guy.
Rod 52:11
No, that's not part of this.
Will 52:13
but the idea of taking homosexuality as it was described back then out of the DSM, whatever number they were up to, at the time through whatever. And so psychiatrist, you know, I don't have his name right in front and literally wore a mask to the American Psychological Psychiatric Association meeting and said, we should we should decriminalise and take it out of the the DSM. And so the idea that I need to I need to do this with a mask on because
Rod 52:43
because I'm a psychiatrists for fucksakes
Will 52:47
it was criminal.
Rod 52:50
No, that would have been, you know, that would have been such a rabbit hole. So as in the aftermath of that presentation, the whole you know, getting mad with people and stuff. So the sociologist gay caucus was created and went on to become sociologists gay lesbian caucus sociologist, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender caucus evolved with the times. And Humphries is one of the active founding members, he was on the steering committee, etc. And so his publications helped legitimise gay and lesbian studies within sociology, at least in America, and challenged the notion of homosexuality as deviance. So good results again, yeah, this is why his stuff is kind of confusing,
Will 53:28
if you if you take the the end, justifies the means.
Rod 53:34
And look, I haven't I didn't see a lot in rummaging around through this, of people saying those participants when subjects, stories about them feeling terribly damaged. I don't know if they don't they might exist, but I didn't they didn't come up in these searches, which surprised me.
Will 53:52
They wanted to stay quiet.
Rod 53:54
And this is one of the arguments that said, you know, more harm was caused by making such a furor about the actual study. Letting people know these lists exist, etcetera, that might have caused potentially more harm to participants than I should say, subjects and participants yet, so 1975 Loud becomes a full professor of sociology. Well done him. 1980 He leaves his wife and his two children to live with his protege, Brian Miller, who was a grad student at University of Alberta.
Will 54:20
So could we use another word than prodigy?
Rod 54:22
Well, I could, but that's what the sources says. Well, he was a grad student and load was a professor, so not the most equal. No bachelors at least Oh my god. So basically, he hooked up with not fair he went into a relationship with this guy, Brian Miller. He became enlightened at the same year certified psychotherapist in California, got into private counselling practice, and basically stopped doing research focused on counselling. I stepped away and the early 80s He Humphries and Miller, his protege, no his partner, co authored heaps of articles on gay sub cultures looking at victims of homophobic violence and just trying to study help understand. By 2004, the book the tea room had sold nearly more than 300,000 copies. So I don't know what the numbers are now I couldn't find them. But apparently other than textbooks, it's one of the biggest selling books on sociology ever written by sociologist, which is pretty impressive. And his work has had a long legacy and continues to so just a little snippet. So I found a New York Times op ed, and it's talking about the case of a senator Republican senator from Idaho, Larry Craig. Larry Craig in 2007, was arrested for lewd conduct in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport. And it was clearly unambiguously a case of entrapment by police that Oh, okay. And it looked like they were you could argue they were using the tea room book both of them as a fricking handbook manual for signals
Will 56:00
seriously. You're trapped, you're fucked.
Rod 56:05
he totally set him up. He used the signals the guy actually went to the Senate to though this and this is part of this whole story that ran through a lot of Humphries stuff. The senator was classic upstanding God fearing married with kids Moral Majority American conservative, loudly professed Christian values and the goodness of normalcy.
Will 56:25
I don't love his hypocrisy.
Rod 56:26
no, wouldn't be great. But also what a shit position to have
Will 56:31
also, don't interrupt people.
Rod 56:32
No, oh, no, that's garbage. Also, don't interrupt people for something that isn't criminal.
Will 56:38
Exactly. Exactly.
Rod 56:41
Two dudes wanna do it, let them do it
Will 56:42
I will accept potentially a hypocrisy line here. I don't know the rest of his arguments if he's like running some anti gay line elsewhere. And he's like, I do different things in private get fucked.
Rod 56:56
It's outrageous. And when you look at the people like the Senator and other men like him, Loud, stuff gets heavily drawn on. So the author of this op ed was saying, Look, in cases where men are either arrested if it's illegal, or at least publicly shamed if it's not illegal, but you know frowned upon, most of them were married, their houses were just a little bit nicer than most of their yards a little bit better kept, though well educated work longer hours. But she's saying these are the kinds of men that are often getting busted or shamed for it. They tend to be active in church and community, but they are also unusually politically and socially conservative, and very vocal about, okay, they had nice families, they had nice families who believed that what they're proud of their fathers would proudly preach in public about the sanctity of marriage and all that sort of stuff. So it's a very strong public facade of Yeah, upstanding family, all that kind of stuff. And this is what way back the author refers back to Loud's observations, which also plagued his old man, the paradox of the breastplate of righteousness. Yeah, yeah. Because these men that had so much to lose by their secret lies being exposed, they more they would more doggedly and publicly acquire the trappings of respectability.
Will 58:05
Yes, I hear it.
Rod 58:07
So the armour is particularly shiny quality, you know, it tends to blind the audience to the certain
Will 58:13
so upstanding. Yes, so heterosexual, good and righteous by it's the culture that makes that kind of thing.
Rod 58:21
And this author goes on to note how Humphries again, adding to the stories that continue the secret offender may well believe he's more righteous than the next man. Hence, his shock, outrage and disbelief, his indignation when he has discovered and discredited
Will 58:34
his shock. Like what? Yeah, and
Rod 58:38
she winds up. Public sex is certainly a public nuisance. I get what I think I'm charitably I'll say what she means is no one wants to walk into a toilet and see people going for whoever they
Will 58:49
are sure, sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure.
Rod 58:52
But she goes on to say criminalising consensual acts is not helpful.
Will 58:56
indeed, not helpful, but also also public nuisance. It's that the little bit of a stretch, like like people do things that in a bathroom stall, yeah, that are expected in a bathroom stall that no one else needs to see. Like when you're reading, yes, or other.
Rod 59:13
I don't like people watching me read.
Will 59:14
No, no, she's just weird. Sure. But you do and your number twos, and it's like, okay, it's a private thing. Yeah. And is it that disturbing not to do something else, but
Rod 59:23
it is described as public nuisance, because you shouldn't bang where people can find you. And it's the classic what if a child walks in?
Will 59:30
where people can find you? what is the find? So they see two sets of feet? if you leave the door open, that's that's different.
Rod 59:38
That could be an issue. But she says, like, criminalising consensual acts not helpful. The only harmful effects of these encounters directly or indirectly, tends to be from the police activity that in sequels and she goes on referring to Humphries again, again, remember this describing an op ed about many men in America in the 2000s who are being busted arrest or whatever. For being hypocrites so to speak. So she says blackmail payoffs the destruction of reputations and families, all result from police intervention in the tea room scene. Yeah, indeed. And she goes on to say what community can afford to lose good citizens. So like why trashing people? For that her closes and for our pot lip stop being so surprised when we discover that our public figures have their own complex sex lives and start being more suspicious when they self righteously denounced the sex life of others.
Will 1:00:28
Exactly. I'm like, yeah, yeah. 100 Yeah. 100%. Yeah. Talk about something else. Like just just get off it. Yeah,
Rod 1:00:36
fuck off. Yep. So look, it's not always recognised. But the tea room books apparently many agree spawned what is now many generations of researchers looking at impersonal sex in public settings, to many degrees, not acknowledged. It has basically been a debt for all the work that has come since then, on HIV AIDS, behaviours, sex, safe sexual practices, mostly non traditional types, as it were, yeah. Arguably goes right back to him, particularly not only, but particularly.
Will 1:01:04
Like, absolutely, and said, Oh, this is a sociological thing worth looking at.
Rod 1:01:09
And so the ethics thing is not that straightforward. So in his final years, so Humphries served as a consultant to police forces so often provided expert testimony for people who got busted for this dumb shit, and so forth so often,
Will 1:01:23
to police forces?
Rod 1:01:24
Yeah, it's a bit confusing, but given they started to back off, hopefully, I'm guessing some what he said was that that's not a crime. Why worry about it? Yeah. And these people are upstanding citizens, why the hell would you get onto it? He had his position at Pitzer, one of those fancy colleges, you know, that liberal things right up till 1986. But apparently, he wasn't engaged with teaching and there are a bunch of student complaints, but I don't know only one source mentioned and fuck knows what about and finally died from complications of lung cancer in 1988. So it's tricky, right? Yeah. Like it's tricky. Because when I first heard this story, it was in passing in an ethics class that someone else was running. Yeah. And they said you heard about this and all they did as you'd expect was talk about his methods and of course, you go like, dude, then you go okay, it was 1970 ethics are different, but they very rarely then go into possible positive ramifications.
Will 1:02:15
Huge I totally huge positive ramifications. I think I think the work needed to be done. He could have been more ethical. Absolutely. He absolutely could have done better but he did. He did a lot right. And and there wasn't probably, you know, if it's just a supervisory panel, no ethics boards. There's not a lot of community around to say hey, maybe do this in a better way. Don't wear a disguise
Rod 1:02:37
Standards at the time did differ
Will 1:02:40
still. Wear a disguise it's hilarious.
Rod 1:02:43
Honestly. No, I'm not him on his quite similar looking but unrelated human who never met before.
