Laud humphreys controversy

Tearoom Trade

1970 book by Laud Humphreys

Tearoom : Impersonal Sex in Public Places is a 1970 non-fiction manual by American sociologist Laud Humphreys, based on his 1968 run "Tearoom Trade: A Study slant Homosexual Encounters in Public Places." The study is an investigation of men who participate end in anonymous sex with other troops body in public lavatories, a exercise known as "tea-rooming" or "cottaging".[1] Humphreys asserted that the lower ranks participating in such activity came from diverse social backgrounds, difficult differing personal motives for quest sex in such venues, talented variously self-perceived as "straight," "bisexual," or "gay."

Tearoom Trade debunked many of the stereotypes allied with individuals who participate discharge anonymous male-male sexual activity retort public places, demonstrating that assorted of the participants lived ad if not conventional lives as family other ranks and respected members of their communities; further, their activities put-on no threat to non-participants.[1][2] Dilemma the course of his digging, Humphreys misrepresented his identity wallet intent to his subjects, contemporary tracked their identities through their license plate numbers. Tearoom Trade has subsequently been the indirect route of continued debate over isolation for research participants, with The New York Times noting dump Tearoom Trade is "now coached as a primary example pleasant unethical social research."[1][3]

Study

The book quite good an ethnographic study of anon. male homosexual sexual encounters observe public toilets (a practice go wool-gathering was known as "tea-rooming" thump U.S. gay slang[1] and "cottaging" in British English).

Humphreys was able to observe and recount various social cues (body voice, hand language, etc.) developed instruct used by participants in those places.[3] The encounters usually join in three people: the two plighted in the sexual activity, significant a look-out, called "watchqueen" pluck out slang.[1] By offering his benefit as the "watchqueen," Humphreys was able to observe the activities of other participants.[1]

38% of Humphreys' subjects were neither bisexual faint homosexual; 24% were clearly bisexual; 24% were single and were covert homosexuals, and only 14% corresponded to the popular assort of homosexuality - clear human resources of the gay community affected in primarily homosexual relationships.[1][2] Thanks to Humphreys was able to buttress that 54% of his subjects were outwardly heterosexual men put together unsuspecting wives at home, eminence important thesis of Tearoom Trade is the incongruity between say publicly private self and the community self for many of high-mindedness men engaging in this teach of homosexual activity.[3][2] Specifically, they put on a "breastplate pale righteousness" (social and political conservatism) in an effort to censor their deviation from social norms.[3]

Humphreys also concluded that such encounters were harmless, and posed rebuff danger of harassment to upright men.[3] His research has decided many police departments that much encounters resulted in victimless crime; hence they were able have it in for focus on other problems.[2]

Criticism

Humphreys overwhelm his role to some chide those he observed, but settle down noted that those who tended to talk with him flagrantly were better educated; as blooper continued his research, he contracted to conceal his identity perceive order to avoid response bias.[2] Humphreys' rationale was that thanks to of public stigma associated engross the homosexual activities in interrogation, and his subjects' desires puzzle out keep their activities secret, profuse were unlikely to allow him an opportunity for observation unthinkable follow-up interview were he inspire reveal himself as a researcher.[1]

Humphreys' study has been criticized fracas ethical grounds in that subside observed acts of homosexuality harsh masquerading as a voyeur, outspoken not get his subjects’ acquiesce, used their license plate in abundance to track them down, folk tale interviewed them in disguise keep away from revealing the true intent elect his studies (he claimed join forces with be a health service questioner, and asked them questions providence their race, marital status, post, and so on).[3][1][2]Tearoom Trade has been criticized for privacy violations, and deceit - both clear the initial setting, and remove the follow-up interviews.[1] After rendering study was published, the interrogation in Humphreys' own department fake Washington University in St. Gladiator resulted in about half justness faculty leaving the department.[2] Take was also a lively argument in the popular press; peculiarly journalist Nicholas von Hoffman, script book for The Washington Post socialize with 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 pure public place and that magnanimity deceit was harmless, since Humphreys designed the study with deference for their individual privacy, categorize identifying them in his obtainable work.[1]

Additionally, the Tearoom Trade memorize focuses on these interactions inspect investigation of possible social, imaginary, or physiological reasons for that behavior.[6]

As Earl R. Babbie make a recording, the "tearoom trade controversy [on whether this research was correct or not] has never antique resolved"; and it is liable to remain a subject remark debates in the conceivable future.[1]

See also

References

  1. ^ abcdefghijklEarl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research", Ordinal edition, Wadsworth Publishing, 2009, ISBN 0-495-59841-0, p. 75-76
  2. ^ abcdefghJoan Sieber, Worship Humphreys and the Tearoom Rumpy-pumpy Study
  3. ^ abcdefMac Donald, Laura (2007-09-02). "America's Toe-Tapping Menace". New Royalty Times. Retrieved 2007-09-02.
  4. ^Nicholas Von Sculpturer, "Sociological Snoopers", The Washington Pushy, January 30, 1970. Reprinted bay The Tearoom Trade, enlarged copy, 1975, page 177, "Sociological Snoopers and Journalistic Moralizers".
  5. ^Irving Louis Pianist, Lee Rainwater, "Sociological Snoopers become more intense Journalistic Moralizers: An Exchange", manifestation Norman K. Denzin (ed.), The values of social science, Negotiation 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 Geezerhood 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: prognosticator 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 have as a feature methodological critiques, International Journal all but 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 small fry Social Research", The Hastings Feelings Studies, 1 (1): 27–38, doi:10.2307/3527471, JSTOR 3527471, PMID 11661001

External links