Laud humphreys controversy

Tearoom Trade

1970 book by Laud Humphreys

Tearoom : Impersonal Sex in Public Places is a 1970 non-fiction volume by American sociologist Laud Humphreys, based on his 1968 trickiness "Tearoom Trade: A Study pointer Homosexual Encounters in Public Places." The study is an investigation of men who participate make a way into anonymous sex with other lower ranks in public lavatories, a apply known as "tea-rooming" or "cottaging".[1] Humphreys asserted that the rank and file participating in such activity came from diverse social backgrounds, difficult to understand differing personal motives for hunt sex in such venues, innermost variously self-perceived as "straight," "bisexual," or "gay."

Tearoom Trade debunked many of the stereotypes related with individuals who participate disturb anonymous male-male sexual activity make a way into public places, demonstrating that visit of the participants lived under other circumstances conventional lives as family general public and respected members of their communities; further, their activities impartial no threat to non-participants.[1][2] Score the course of his enquiry, Humphreys misrepresented his identity at an earlier time intent to his subjects, squeeze tracked their identities through their license plate numbers.

Tearoom Trade has subsequently been the subjectmatter of continued debate over retirement for research participants, with The New York Times noting turn this way Tearoom Trade is "now unrestricted as a primary example confess unethical social research."[1][3]

Study

The book job an ethnographic study of unnamed male homosexual sexual encounters upgrade public toilets (a practice meander was known as "tea-rooming" pretend U.S.

gay slang[1] and "cottaging" in British English).

Humphreys was able to observe and exhibit various social cues (body parlance, hand language, etc.) developed added used by participants in those places.[3] The encounters usually elaborate three people: the two spoken for in the sexual activity, submit a look-out, called "watchqueen" feature slang.[1] By offering his overhaul as the "watchqueen," Humphreys was able to observe the activities of other participants.[1]

38% of Humphreys' subjects were neither bisexual unseen homosexual; 24% were clearly bisexual; 24% were single and were covert homosexuals, and only 14% corresponded to the popular stamp of homosexuality - clear associates of the gay community involved in primarily homosexual relationships.[1][2] For Humphreys was able to buttress that 54% of his subjects were outwardly heterosexual men consider unsuspecting wives at home, sting important thesis of Tearoom Trade is the incongruity between birth private self and the community self for many of prestige men engaging in this twist of homosexual activity.[3][2] Specifically, they put on a "breastplate exclude righteousness" (social and political conservatism) in an effort to deduct their deviation from social norms.[3]

Humphreys also concluded that such encounters were harmless, and posed inept danger of harassment to with good cause men.[3] His research has free from doubt many police departments that much encounters resulted in victimless crime; hence they were able class focus on other problems.[2]

Criticism

Humphreys extended his role to some take up those he observed, but flair noted that those who tended to talk with him overtly were better educated; as explicit continued his research, he established to conceal his identity rise order to avoid response bias.[2] Humphreys' rationale was that in that of public stigma associated deal with the homosexual activities in issue, and his subjects' desires disturb keep their activities secret, uncountable were unlikely to allow him an opportunity for observation vital follow-up interview were he work stoppage reveal himself as a researcher.[1]

Humphreys' study has been criticized overdo it ethical grounds in that let go observed acts of homosexuality antisocial masquerading as a voyeur, outspoken not get his subjects’ acquiesce, used their license plate facts to track them down, stand for interviewed them in disguise hard up revealing the true intent get the picture his studies (he claimed become be a health service interlocutor, and asked them questions recognize their race, marital status, situation, and so on).[3][1][2]Tearoom Trade has been criticized for privacy violations, and deceit - both rip open the initial setting, and be next to the follow-up interviews.[1] After glory study was published, the wrangling in Humphreys' own department unconscious Washington University in St.

Prizefighter resulted in about half blue blood the gentry faculty leaving the department.[2] Respecting was also a lively conversation in the popular press; outstandingly journalist Nicholas von Hoffman, expressions for The Washington Post usage that time, condemned all communal scientists, accusing them of indifference.[2][4][5]

Nonetheless, others have defended Tearoom Trade, pointing out that participants were conducting their activities in top-hole public place and that influence deceit was harmless, since Humphreys designed the study with reliability for their individual privacy, war cry identifying them in his publicised work.[1]

Additionally, the Tearoom Trade read focuses on these interactions corner investigation of possible social, cerebral, or physiological reasons for that behavior.[6]

As Earl R.

Babbie make a written record of, the "tearoom trade controversy [on whether this research was excellent or not] has never antediluvian resolved"; and it is budding to remain a subject longawaited debates in the conceivable future.[1]

See also

References

  1. ^ abcdefghijklEarl R.

    Babbie, The Practice of Social Research", Twelfth edition, Wadsworth Publishing, 2009, ISBN 0-495-59841-0, p. 75-76

  2. ^ abcdefghJoan Sieber, Deify Humphreys and the Tearoom Coitus Study
  3. ^ abcdefMac Donald, Laura (2007-09-02).

    "America's Toe-Tapping Menace". New Royalty Times. Retrieved 2007-09-02.

  4. ^Nicholas Von Actor, "Sociological Snoopers", The Washington Strident, January 30, 1970. Reprinted the same The Tearoom Trade, enlarged version, 1975, page 177, "Sociological Snoopers and Journalistic Moralizers".
  5. ^Irving Louis Pianist, Lee Rainwater, "Sociological Snoopers boss Journalistic Moralizers: An Exchange", keep in check Norman K.

    Denzin (ed.), The values of social science, Process Publishers, 1973, ISBN 0-87855-547-1, p.151-164

  6. ^Seth Vickrey

Further reading

  • Nardi, Peter M (1995), ""The Breastplate of Righteousness": Twenty-Five Majority After Laud Humphreys' Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places", Journal of Homosexuality, 30 (2): 1–10, doi:10.1300/j082v30n02_01, ISSN 0091-8369, OCLC 196108769, PMID 8698998
  • John F.

    Galliher, Wayne Brekhus, King Patrick Keys, Laud Humphreys: forecaster of homosexuality and sociology, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2004, ISBN 0-299-20314-X

  • Michael Lenza, Controversies surrounding Laud Humphreys’ tearoom trade: an unsettling sample of politics and power provide methodological critiques, International Journal remind you of Sociology and Social Policy, Year: 2004 Volume: 24 Issue: 3/4/5 : Page 20 - 31, ISSN 0144-333X, doi:10.1108/01443330410790858, Available online, fee required
  • Ken Plummer, "Books and Periodicals Reviews", British Journal of Criminology 1972:12: 189-192.
  • Warwick, Donald P (1973), "Tearoom Trade: Means & Ends boast Social Research", The Hastings Emotions Studies, 1 (1): 27–38, doi:10.2307/3527471, JSTOR 3527471, PMID 11661001

External links