Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places

1727 Words4 Pages

Laud Humphreys’ book “Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places” was originally published in 1970. Humphreys earned his PhD from Washington University in St. Louis, although several faculty members tried to rescind it due to his research methods that were perceived to be “dishonest”. His book details the activities of homosexual men who regularly visit public restrooms (tearooms) to find quick anonymous sex. Since Laud Humphreys was a sociologist, he recognized the simplistic stereotypes that the society had on impersonal homoerotic activity. The sociologist thus noted that it would be of considerable social significance for the society to appreciate the motives and patterns of this deviant activity. His study findings unearthed underlying ideals, which challenged the oppressive nature of society. The study rejected the earlier myths that assumed that casual sexual encounters in public restrooms was practiced by criminals, pedophiles and transients who needed to be prosecuted and locked away from the society. Based on the book, most participants were consenting adult individuals of high moral standing in the society. This paper reviews this book in light of these fundamental sociological issues raised by Humphreys. Humphrey observed many sexual acts from 1966 to 1967 in 19 different men’s restrooms. Although the origin of the term tearooms, interchangeably used with restrooms is unknown, Laud Humphrey refers to them as the location where men frequently go to for sexual encounters. The restrooms were located in five different parks in one city comprising of a population of approximately two million people. In the study of male homosexual encounters in public restrooms, Humphreys posed as a voyeur and lookout, otherwise kn... ... middle of paper ... ... had a positive outcome. I believe that it makes the results more accurate when the people don’t know that they are being studied. People do act more comfortably and this is definitely a way to obtain the best results, as opposed to people who know they are being studied and tend to provide different answers. Humphrey also uses statistics to show the percentages of people who were involved in such behaviors to show us where they come from and what their social environments were like. Nowadays, it is unethical to do so and to collect data and study people without their consultation as it can invade privacy. This study raises fundamental questions on the moral fabric and the role of religious and political institutions in giving direction on covert deviant actions. The most “flawless” people we perceive in society are those who engage the most in such deviant behavior.

Open Document