In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

4 Published Criticism and Use of Tearoom Trade The initial reviews were typically neither enthusiastic nor outraged. In the American Sociological Review Ira Reiss (1971, 581) noted: “My overall reaction to this book is rather mixed. . . . This unintended use of a public facility is itself a valuable contribution to the study of the urban scene” [and involves] “men of all social classes.” The problem is that the book relies far too much on the “use of jargon” (582). A reviewer in the American Anthropologist was also lukewarm: “Overall, the treatment of the patrons seems somewhat superficial. One would prefer more depth, greater understanding, and more insight” (Eiselein 1971, 860). This is a curious criticism because insight and understanding are typically considered the primary strengths of the book. The reviewer for the Library Journal had additional reservations: “His study raises the question of whether or not it could have broader and more authoritative application had it been conducted by a team which included medicolegal experts” (Sprow 1970, 2704), presumably meaning that lawyers and doctors should have made the tearoom observations. A reviewer for Contemporary Psychology (Wiens 1971) merely describes the content of the book, without hazarding any evaluation, noting only that the research was thorough with the participant-observation stage of the data collection lasting approximately two years. A bit more positive, a reviewer for the Annals observes: “From a purely aesthetic point of view, the impersonal, uncommitted homosexual contact is a very dreary and dingy sexual outlet. In terms of this aesthetic dimension, I admire Humphreys’s tenacity in pursuing this project to its conclusion” (Lavin 1971, 200). A review in the Archives of 36 Sexual Behavior calls this book “a remarkable achievement” (Hoffman 1971, 98) [for] “Humphreys’s book does cause us all to confront some of our prejudices, and for that, among the many other things it gives us, we must be grateful” (100). “While all proper liberals now agree that consensual sex in private should not be subject to the criminal law, what about consensual sex in public?” (100). The consulting editor of the Criminal Law Bulletin (Cohen 1971, 67) gave the most positive review: “It is a most unusual book about men who, despite our preconceptions, turn out to be not so unusual. . . . Much of our knowledge about sexual behavior in general comes from interviews, clinical case histories, gamey courtroom stories, and locker room anecdotes. Here, for the first time, a participant-observer tells it like it is instead of how others say it is.” Still, Cohen raises an issue: “Does a man who engages in criminal conduct . . . in a public facility, in effect waive his rights to privacy and dignity ?” (68). Considering that most arrests for consensual homosexual activities involve activities in public restrooms, perhaps some rethinking of the definition of private and public is required. “Humphreys’ work has the effect of raising profound questions as to what is private. If ‘in private’ is simply another aspect of consent—consent to be approached, to view and to engage . . . the games people play in tearooms may be no less private than those played at cocktail parties” (69), and thus law enforcement should cease its surveillance of restrooms in search of sexual encounters. Soon after the publication of Tearoom Trade in 1970 Laud and his publisher, Aldine, recognized the explosive impact of the book on debates concerning the ethics of covert social science research. Thus in the second edition, published in 1975, some of the most stinging criticisms were included in a new concluding section entitled “Retrospect: Ethical Issues in Social Research.” Samples of these critiques are reproduced in the paragraphs below. Syndicated columnist Nicholas von Hoffman turned this research into a nationally visible issue. Von Hoffman argued that, although Humphreys believed in his own good motives, good motives were not sufficient, since “J. Edgar Hoover unquestionably believes he’s protecting the country against subversion when he orders your telephone tapped” (von Hoffman 1975, 179). In this same vein von Hoffman also mentions that Richard Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, and his Justice Department could justify any of their tactics, using guilt by association to condemn Laud. Von Hoffman also argued that, “incontestably such information is useful to parents, to teen-agers themselves, to Published Criticism and Use of Tearoom Trade 37 f policemen, legislators and many others, but it is done by invading some people’s privacy. My newspaper could probably learn a lot of things that the public has a right...

Share