Saturday, September 15, 2007

My stance on Larry Craig

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.


Anonymous said...

Wow, it's just like CSI around here

Julie Pippert said...

(banging hand on desk) Oh my stars this is (laughing too hard to speak) RIGHT, omg, so RIGHT...the insight (burst back into gales of laughter).

I am beside myself with the visual and what you ahem companions thought.

I mean, you do live in That State and all.


Using My Words

Whit said...

maybe he takes off all his clothes when he poops, like Castanza.

Jeff and Charli Lee said...

whit - Sure he does. But first he takes off his shoes, and THEN puts them back on, because the detective said Craig rubbed his shoe against his. But yeah, could happen.

Unknown said...

Wow. This was like CSI Rest Stop. My question is this: Considering the stench in most men's rooms, who other than dogs would want to have sex in one?

My other question: Can you still read the newspaper while simultaneously perfroming the "wide stance?"

yoo hoo said...

I'm embarrassed for the whole state of Idaho, which is my birth state....this guy is a joke all the way...and he's missed 26 important votes in the Senate because he put himself under house arrest with his wife in Idaho.
More that anything it shows how low some men will go to have sex. Read this article in the Idaho Statesman with quotes from Slate. ick!

SQT said...

I like the visual evidence. ;)

Julie Pippert said...

Okay had to share this with the husband who pointed out immediately the limitations of my gender here.

I ASSUMED if one is in the stall one is sitting with pants down (not that I dedicate any time thinking about this outside of your post).

However, there is allegedly a thing called a Peter Freak (or somesuch) that means a man who uses the stall as he would a other words, he leaves pants up, drops fly, and remains standing. Understandably preferring privacy.

Did you re-enact that scenario? ;)

I would just like to point out that this sort of monkey business would not get one anywhere in the ladies room.

Any tapping or bumping would net a, "Oh honey do you need paper? Hygiene product? Is nature not answering the call? You hang in there, sweetie!"

Using My Words

Anonymous said...

What class! A Senator seaking oral or anal sex in a stinky men's room, where most men would be very happy with just an occasional "courtesy flush". Last Saturday a foot slid into my stall. I instantly stomped hard on it. The "wide stancer" screemed in pain as he stumbled from the booth. I gave him five dollars and apologized after he said he was the custodian washing toilets and floors.

Matthew said...

Wide stance is the new completely ironic implausible phrase. Like Mission Accomplished.

Heather said...

That is some detective work there Jeff.

Anonymous said...

I think that your illustrations are just STELLAR. and other than that, this larry craig thing..cuz..well...he's frankly embarrassing my state??? well I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion and that freakin cop should go out and bust some real losers and stop pee'ing and stuff of that nature. with that said, I think larry craig is probably an idiot but i'm not sure so I will use an alias for this comment just in case???

Anonymous said...

i'm with Dan, that was CSI worthy.

Larry Craig is an idiot. and i'm sorry, but his own words pretty much "told" the real story shortly after this "unfortunate" incident occurred. i mean, hello? "I saw this large black man and I was afraid of becoming another stastistic" ???? oh, Larry knew darn well what he was "rubbing" up against in that other stall, and he got caught with his pants... somewhere.

oy. now my head hurts. (which is what Larry was heard to say while zipping up his pants. ewwww)

another winning-yet-hilarious post, Jeff. with illustrations, and everything! ; )

Gale said...

Nothing like a scientific explanation to help put this to to speak.

Anonymous said...

Will you be testifying for the prosecution, then? Because I think your drawing along with testimony about your experiment would easily prove his guilt.

And sex in a Burger King bathroom stall? Ew ew ew.

Now you must pardon me while I leave the computer desk to explain to my husband why I'm giggling like a maniac.

Stepping Over the Junk said...

this whole issue makes me snicker...(larry craig) and your post makes me laugh ponder it in such detail...

Mom Thumb said...

Maybe the jury could use your testimony about your, um, field work.

Anonymous said...

I love that you took the time to create cartoons of men with and without their pants around their ankles.

But why do they all look like they have razer-burn?

Jeff and Charli Lee said...

jenny - Of course I took the time to do it right. You don't just whip these things out you know. Well, maybe Larry Craig does, but I don't.

BTW, that's not razor burn - that's just stubble. He really ought to think about trying Neet.