Re: From the Savage Love Mailbag

[Dan Savage]

So, like, what should I tell this guy? It's okay? It's not okay? I'm inclined to say it's okay—gross, yes, but okay—unless someone manages to talk me out of it.

As for the obvious question—how would I feel if someone taped my farts while I took a long, noisy shit in a public, multi-stalled restroom—all I can say in my defense is this: I don't take craps in public toilets.

[Sklampton]

Well, It seems harmless enough, but I wonder whether the laws the prohibit recording people without their knowledge are really so specific as to only cover "conversations." What if someone is farting in code? Is that a conversation?

And what happens when he accidentally records someone having a conversation in the bathroom? Certainly this must happen every now and then if he records for any significant length of time. From what I know of gangsters and drug dealers, they often walk into a bathroom, check the stalls to make sure they're alone, and then proceed to discuss illegal activity in hushed tones. Is this fart-fetishist ready to deal with the ethical dilemma THAT inevitability will present? Hmmm?

[mason-bryant]

I am no lawyer, but I'm guessing that if this were the cops recording a drug deal a judge would probably say that one has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the sounds one makes when using a public restroom.

Originally Posted by Dan Savage

So, like, what should I tell this guy? It's okay? It's not okay? I'm inclined to say it's okay—gross, yes, but okay—unless someone manages to talk me out of it.

As for the obvious question—how would I feel if someone taped my farts while I took a long, noisy shit in a public, multi-stalled restroom—all I can say in my defense is this: I don't take craps in public toilets.

[raymondrna]

seeing as voyeurism is already illegal in many places .. I'd file this under that section.

it's as if saying it's okay to tape a conversation that takes place in a public place .. or it's okay to film people changing in a locker room because well hey their changing in front of people anyway why not take it home and whack off to it.

or all the sick fucks that install hidden cameras to tape people shitting or pissing.

sorry, if your going to take advantage of someone's flatulance for sexual gratification, you should have the courtesy to seek permission.

[Sklampton]

Originally Posted by mason-bryant

I am no lawyer, but I'm guessing that if this were the cops recording a drug deal a judge would probably say that one has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the sounds one makes when using a public restroom.

Yeah, but if this were the cops, they would need a warrant to record someone, right?

[grammarcop]

I'd go with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard, as well as Peeping Tom laws, to indicate that this behavior would be considered illegal. Not to mention the contents of those tapes would be considered embarrassing by any reasonable person, no matter whether the flatulator or defecator could be identified by bathroom noises alone.

On the other hand, it seems unlikely this behavior as described has harmed or is likely to cause harm to any of the men being recorded. In practice, this fetish could safely be indulged -- but we're leaving out the husband factor.

Your writer's husband is disturbed by the practice, and finds it invasive. Unless your writer wishes to find himself single, I recommend he halt his likely illegal behavior and do what doubless countless freaks before him have done: Go to a highway rest stop and wait for truckers to come into the adjoining stalls.

[grammarcop]

Originally Posted by mason-bryant

I am no lawyer, but I'm guessing that if this were the cops recording a drug deal a judge would probably say that one has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the sounds one makes when using a public restroom.

I'd argue just the opposite. I think there's a clear expectation your bathroom sounds will not be discussed, published or otherwise disseminated after you leave the stall. A restroom stall is, for all intents and purposes, a private place -- while you might make an argument the other way for a conversation held while at the sink, I would imagine most courts would see a closed toilet stall as a de facto sancto sanctorum, where no others ought to intrude with any of their five senses.

[xaotica]

i'm not convinced that he needs to do this secretly. surely there'd be men who would find the idea entertaining enough that they'd turn over their sounds willingly.

in fact, according to this seattle job posting on craigslist, he could even make some money with the sounds.

[mason-bryant]

Not to be confused with sancto Santorum, the reasonable expectation that your frothy mix of lube and fecal matter will remain private.

Originally Posted by grammarcop

I would imagine most courts would see a closed toilet stall as a de facto sancto sanctorum, where no others ought to intrude with any of their five senses.

[Violet_DaGrinder]

I suspect there's a fairly clear answer to the legal question, and I don't think I care that much what it is, so. . . that aside. . .

What's churning around in my head is the consent issue. Most people do not want to be used for sexual gratification without their consent, and even in cases where it's harmless, I tend to think it's morally questionable to do so.

Think of something like upskirt photography, something that most of us would agree is some version of wrong d/t lack of consent. You can't identify somebody by the view up their skirt (unless you know them reaaaally well, in which case they don't care that you saw the photo. . .heh), and you could argue that if they don't know the picture was taken, well, no harm done. Hey, if you don't want people to see your pannies, wear a garment that does not expose them to possible view by eyes or electronics positioned on the ground and pointing upwards!

Thing is, you don't expect "eyes" on the ground. And you don't expect recording devices in bathrooms, unless you're quite a paranoid sort. Point being, there is no implied consent in either case.

Right?

[stapuft]

Hey Dan-

Mason mentioned santorum, and just as I do every now and then to see where it stands in the google results, I googled "rick santorum" and saw that this is now the google byline:

"Satirical attempt to name the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex after Senator Rick Santorum."

Has it always said "satirical"? That seems new. I'm willing to testify to its legitimacy with an anecdotal story: a few months ago I was having drinks with a couple that I'm friends with, and (playfully demonstrating how filthy the other one was), one of them said "his ass is lazy, last week we, you know, and he tried to go to bed with santorum all over his ass. I said "you need to get your ass into the shower if you want to sleep in my bed tonight".

I've heard it so much that it didn't even occur to me that it was funny, it just struck me as practical. Finally, we have a word that describes the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. I didn't realize we needed one until then.

By the way when I crap in public, I am careful to make sure that the bathroom is empty before pinching a noisy loaf. Please don't record me. Thanks.

[Dan Savage]

I was mystified when that tag line began to appear on the Google result after someone searches the word "Santorum." For a long time it was just the new definition, suggested by a Savage Love reader, and that was it. I've always wondered if someone in Santorum's office, or even the Senator himself, complained about it.

For the record: There's nothing "satirical" about the efforts of Savage Love readers to redefine Santorum. Our efforts were not only in earnest, they were wildly successful, as your letter demonstrates, Stapuft.

[Johnny Slick]

Are these farts that we are talking about wet or dry?

:randy:

[Violet_DaGrinder]

Perhaps that was a bit academic.

Let's get to the heart of the matter:
Does this guy get rock cock every time he farts?

[DJWild]

I have no idea of the legality of this, but it seems unethical, which for me is more important.

I'm guessing that the vast majority of the guys that were recorded, if asked, would be disturbed that someone was getting off listening them blow crap all over the bowl. It's definitely non-consensual, like up-skirt or locker room pics. These pics may titillate me, but at the cost of stealing something from someone else. It makes no difference that they aren't aware of it.

But surely there are enough fellow fart/crap/IBS sound freaks out there that this guy could trade sound files online with others? In my younger poorer days, I would have happily recorded myself, in exchange for a big meal at taco bell and a good laugh under the 'do anything once' category.

[Johnny Slick]

Realistically, how many fartophiles are out there? If I heard someone was recording my company's bathroom for farts, I'd be more inclined to think they were doing it for some wacky morning radio show than to get their J on. Yes, with the Internet and all you can probably find someone other than this guy... but a whole community? My love of the human race refuses to believe that that exists, except maybe again as a joke thing.

[xaotica]

there probably aren't a ton of fartophiles, but there ARE a ton of poor college students who'll do quite a bit for very little cash.