Ethics Controversies: Case Studies - Debates

about the ethics of the Tearoom Trade Study

In addition to recording the sex acts of over 100 men Humphreys had a small subset who knew he
was a researcher and spoke to him about sex in public places and homosexuality (which was in the
1960s criminalised in the United States).

Humphreys wanted to understand the relationship between these men's anonymous homosexual acts
and their public lives. He recorded their licence plates as they returned to their cars, and then found
out their addresses. A year later, he changed his hair, dress and car and went to the home of 50 of
these men. Portraying himself as a social health researcher he interviewed them under false pretences
to gain information on their marital status, sexuality and sexual orientations and occupations.

At the time of Humphreys' research having sex with men was a crime in most of the U.S. Men could
be arrested and sentenced to years in prison for it. If the police had got hold of Humphreys' data or if
the identities of the men involved had been revealed, they would have been severely stigmatised,
their family lives ruined, they could have lost their jobs, or even been arrested and imprisoned.

In not identifying himself as a researcher Humphreys argued he was doing nothing wrong, he was
merely observing behaviour in public spaces and said he masqueraded as a gay "watch queen" so as
not to interfere with the research. Most social scientists agree that observing people's acts in public
spaces is not unethical, as long as people are not identified.

On risk that his notes could have been seized to identify men engaged in illegal acts said he would
have risked going to jail rather than hand them over. Others have said no researcher should have
such power over others, no matter how good their intentions are.

Most have found his most serious ethical violation the way he disguised himself and went to mens'
homes on a false pretext, invading their privacy. Humphreys argued his deception was justified as the
acts were so stigmatised he would not have got the information otherwise.
Ethics Controversies: Case Studies - Debates
about the ethics of the Tearoom Trade Study
Methodology
In the 1960's PhD student in sociology Laud Humphreys studied men who have sex with other men in
public restrooms of city parks. These restrooms were known as "tearooms". Humphreys got his
information by acting as "watch queen", playing the role of lookout and warning the men if anyone
was coming. The men involved did not know he was a researcher.

In addition to recording the sex acts of over 100 men Humphreys had a small subset who knew he
was a researcher and spoke to him about sex in public places and homosexuality (which was in the
1960s criminalised in the United States).

Humphreys wanted to understand the relationship between these men's anonymous homosexual acts
and their public lives. He recorded their licence plates as they returned to their cars, and then found
out their addresses. A year later, he changed his hair, dress and car and went to the home of 50 of
these men. Portraying himself as a social health researcher he interviewed them under false pretences
to gain information on their marital status, sexuality and sexual orientations and occupations.

At the time of Humphreys' research having sex with men was a crime in most of the U.S. Men could
be arrested and sentenced to years in prison for it. If the police had got hold of Humphreys' data or if
the identities of the men involved had been revealed, they would have been severely stigmatised,
their family lives ruined, they could have lost their jobs, or even been arrested and imprisoned.

In not identifying himself as a researcher Humphreys argued he was doing nothing wrong, he was
merely observing behaviour in public spaces and said he masqueraded as a gay "watch queen" so as
not to interfere with the research. Most social scientists agree that observing people's acts in public
spaces is not unethical, as long as people are not identified.

On risk that his notes could have been seized to identify men engaged in illegal acts said he would
have risked going to jail rather than hand them over. Others have said no researcher should have
such power over others, no matter how good their intentions are.

Most have found his most serious ethical violation the way he disguised himself and went to mens'
homes on a false pretext, invading their privacy. Humphreys argued his deception was justified as the
acts were so stigmatised he would not have got the information otherwise.
In Tearoom Trade (1970/1975), Laud Humphreys’ writes about the homosexual relations that took place
in various “tearooms” (i.e., public bathrooms) in an unidentified American city during the mid- to late
1960s. By pretending to be a simple voyeur, Humphreys explains that he systematically observed these
activities and even recorded the license plate numbers of a sample of tearoom participants. While the
systematic observation part of his study permitted an understanding of the rules and roles, patterns of
collective action, and risks of the game associated with impersonal gay sex in public restrooms, his
tracking down and interviewing a handful of the subjects allowed Humphreys to better understand the
identity, lives, and rationality of those men involved in the so-called tearoom trade. While the author
defended the ethics behind his research early on, he was still stunned by the backlash it received. Yet,
even years after Humphreys’ death, the ethical issues that his study provoked continue to reverberate in
the social research community. In response to such issues, I will use this post to critically evaluate the
strong and weak points of his book.
In regards to the strong points of Humphreys’ study, there were certainly many. Firstly, I really liked
what the author had to say about some tearoom participants wearing “a breastplate of righteousness.”
It makes sense that men engaging in impersonal gay sex, especially those with much to lose, would want
to appear conservative so as to hide their deviant dalliances from others. This idea—that “there is a
witch behind every witch hunt”—continues to have resonance today (Humphreys 1970/1975:141).
Secondly, I found it interesting that Humphreys classified the participants by occupational status and
marital status: trade, ambisexuals, gay, and closet queens. I further found it intriguing for Humphreys to
suggest that closet queens may be the most dangerous of the groups to society because of their
attraction toward youth and because of their relative unattractiveness to adults.  Thirdly, I liked that
Humphreys wrote about the importance of blackmail, especially when it comes to the police. The idea
that those with power and resources can trade money for silence highlights the inequality and
corruption that still exist in our criminal justice system. Lastly, I think it is important that Humphreys’
study continues to highlight ethical problems. Among others, Babbie (2004) writes about how this study
has pushed researchers to constantly hold themselves responsible for the well-being of their subjects.

Still, while I liked this book, I did have a few problems with it. Firstly, I took objection to the tracking of
the tearoom participants. Although Humphreys would later write that he regretted this decision and
that he should have only interviewed willing subjects like the twelve informants he referred to as the
“intensive dozen,” the use of deception to find and interview the respondents was somewhat appalling.
Secondly, Humphreys contends that Americans are squeamish about things like tearoom sex because
sex that is tolerated privately is not tolerated publically—that is, people in the U.S. don’t like the idea
that public sex may put bystanders in an uncomfortable and unrequested position. But, if consent is the
main issue, then why do we continue to have a large segment of the population actively championing
laws designed to limit gay sex between consenting adults? Maybe Humphreys’ argument would have
been stronger had he tied the breastplate of righteousness to the reasoning as to why many Americans
want to control homosexual activity. Thirdly, I am not sure if I agree with Humphreys that the tearooms
of today are like the bordellos of the past. Will all sexually rapacious men who would have gone to
bordellos 100 years ago suddenly be OK with sex with other men? Lastly (and relatedly), I wonder about
the possible bias Humphreys may have had towards his study considering that he would later come out
as a gay man. Putting the assertions aside that he may have been sexually active in the tearooms
(Babbie 2004), I am curious about how much (if any) of his writing was influenced by his own sexual
preferences.

In conclusion, Humphreys’ study provides the reader with a discussion on an interesting (and
surprisingly common) topic that had previously been virtually ignored. While there is certainly valid
criticism of this work, I feel it has more strong points than weak ones. Still, this is just a cursory
evaluation of his work, and I’m sure that there are many different opinions on the positive and negative
aspects of Tearoom Trade. In your opinion, what are the best parts and worst parts of the work? Should
Humphreys have done this study/written the book? Was it worth it/necessary? What do you think?