If you're ever driving through the Cities and need to stop for a bathroom break near Maple Grove, my advice is to stop at the Burger King instead of the I94 rest stop - because "have it your way" means something totally different there.
This is because this rest stop just north of Minneapolis has been closed several times due to complaints that patrons are walking in on men having sex in the stalls. I know, yuk.
So, because I've been hearing about this stupid rest stop for years, I wasn't the least bit surprised when the story about Larry Craig at the Minneapolis airport first broke over the news. I figured he was just another stall-baller and laughed it off as someone who is getting what he deserved.
But when the details of why he was arrested came out I was less convinced. Tapping his foot is certainly no crime, I (used to) do that all the time when I use the bathroom. Rubbing your hand under the stall wall is disgusting, but not illegal. And "accidentally" bumping your foot against someone else's seems odd, but again - no crime that I'm aware of.
So after hearing the facts of the arrest I was undecided. I'm sure the arresting officer is very skilled in his knowledge of gay sex signals, but I can't say that a jury would deliver a verdict of "guilty" based solely on this flimsy evidence.
But still, something seemed odd to me about this case and I couldn't figure out what it was.
Larry Craig, of course, claimed that he uses a "wide stance" when going to the bathroom - but that doesn't make sense to me. I mean who sits on a toilet and spreads his legs so far apart that they can accidentally bump the guy's foot in the next stall? That's a pretty wide stance all right.
So yesterday, as I was sitting in the stall of the bathroom of our office building, I decided to "reenact" the whole wide stance thing just to see if I could get some perspective on how someone could sit like that.
And then... I realized something strange.
Larry Craig's explanation that he uses a "wide stance" is crap! How do I know this? Because when I tried it, this is what I found:
1. If you put your pants down around your ankles, your legs are prevented from spreading any further apart than the width of your pants.
2. If you keep your pants up around your knees - same thing.
3. The only way you can obtain a "wide stance" is if your pants are still up around your waist, or you completely take your pants off - which I highly doubt Craig did.
Therefore... this begs the question: Why else would someone sit on a toilet fully dressed and spread his legs so far apart that they can rub the guy's foot in the next stall? If you're not in there to "do your business," then why else are you in there?
Now when you add the foot tapping and the hand rubbing to the foot bumping from a fully clothed guy sitting on the toilet next to you, you get a much more compelling argument.
And here is someone else's letter that supports my theory as well.
We know what stance Craig said he took. Now I guess we'll just have to wait and see what stance the jury takes.