Laud Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade
Student’s Name
Institution
Laud Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade
In his book, “Tearoom Trade,” Laud Humphrey talks about a study he conducted about gay behaviors that occurred in public places, specifically in the tearoom or public toilets. At the time of this study, many laws were against the act of sodomy. In this writing, Humphrey acted as a simpler watcher who guarded the doors of public restrooms in parks so that men have sex inside without being caught. Since he was on a mission, he systematically observed these activities and even recorded down the license plate numbers of those men who engaged in impersonal sex in public places. Using the license plate number, Humpreys looked up for the participant addresses. After a year, he concealed his identity and presented himself to those homes as a social health researcher who interviewed the subject under the pretense to gain information on their sexuality, sexual orientations, marital status, and occupations (Humphreys, 1970). Surprisingly, many of the men he had recorded were married to women and living a quiet middle-class life. Despite the book uncovering the truth behind impersonal sex in public places, it is considered unethical today. Thus, the following essay will address what Humphreys did well, what he did poorly, and how he could have conducted his research differently to address the ethical issues raised.
Even though the research received many critiques, many other strong points made the study successful. The first thing that Humphry did well is that his work was a study of its type that dwelled into sexual deviations. He took an initiative to lift a lid on an area of the society that very few understood about it. Through his work, it was of considerable importance for the community to gain more insights into why these participants were motivated to seek quick impersonal sexual gratification. Thus, he was able to find some reasons why certain men participated in such acts. He confronted the prejudice about the activities of homosexuality, which was forbidden at that time. His work has significantly contributed to the historical importance of understanding human sexuality because his study has made other researchers accountable for the well-being of their subjects. His research changed a lot of people’s perceptions concerning gay, which was illegal at that time. It also led to lessening of the rules governing sodomy arrests.
Another thing that Humphrey did well is about the blackmail. Referring to those in leadership like the police, he writes that those with resources and power can trade money for silence, meaning that corruption and inequality exist in the society and the criminal justice system.
Many of the criticisms of the book came from the research method that he used. He employed different unethical practices of research. One of the potential ethical issues is when he used the method of covert participant observation by acting as a guard who guarded the door of public restrooms. Without actually taking part in the activities, Humphrey deceived the participants by acting like one of them. He assumed the role of a “watch queen” who looked out for them, but in the real sense, he was observing and recording their activities. Similarly, deception was used in gaining demographic data and information when Humphreys pretended to be a social health researcher to interview the participants. Humphreys deliberately waits after one year so that he can minimize the risk of being recognized. He changes his hairstyle and conceals his identity so that the participants cannot know him. The participant’s privacy was breached by recording the license plate number of participants without their consent. He also went ahead to tracking them and inviting himself to their homes as a social worker. The method of research was subjective and biased because the study relied upon the observational skills of the researcher. Another possibility of a bias towards the review comes out when the author later identifies himself as a gay man. Identification of consequences is another thing that the author did wrong. The author said that a lot of the participants were married men who lived quiet lives with their wives and children. Consequently, these men could lose their families if the information was disclosed.
Even though Humphreys may not have gotten this valuable material if he followed the ethical standards, he could have conducted his research differently to address the controversial issues. Instead of deceiving the participation in answering the questionnaires, he could have interviewed only the willing participants. Rather than deceiving his participants that he is one of them, he could have asked for permission to engage in a field study from the relevant authorities. He could have followed the ethical standards required to conduct field research.
In conclusion, Humphreys’s study has proved to be one controversial piece of work. However, the study provides the society with one discussion that had been ignored. Although the study violated the ethical standard of modern research, it significantly contributed to sex research. Conversely, Humphrey may not have made this valuable discovery if he could have abode by the ethical standards the
Reference
Humphreys, L. (1970). The Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex In Public Places.