Disempowering men to speak about or owning up their sexual need for men

I wonder if a discussion on Tearoom Trade would help us in matters pertaining to queer choice. Tearoom trade, for those who don't know, is impersonal sex in public places—highway truck stops, public restrooms, parks—between men (I haven't heard about women doing this). Queer theorist Michael Warner spoke on my campus last year, and he regards this practice to be a vital part of queer life; he said that gay (-identified) men had always considered it important to turn public spaces into sexual spaces. Anyway, whether Tearoom trade is good or bad is not the focus here. The focus is on how this practice intersects with identity issues.

Laud Humphreys, a doctoral student in Washington, did an ethnography called "Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places." He reports that partner selection and negotiation are all accomplished silently; no words are spoken. Sex may be dyadic or group sex. It is usually oral sex. A weird sort of community develops; the men are intimate, yet they do not know each other. A "watch queen" stands at the door of the restroom to knock on the door if anyone is approaching. The encounter is anonymous, quick and furtive (it has to be). Anyway, curiosity killed the cat for Mr. Humphreys—which made for a good book but bad ethics. He noted down the license plate numbers of the participants and followed them home, claiming to be a health researcher. He made the men and their families fill out surveys. What he found was that these avid tearoom traders were married fathers, leading double lives.

Now, if these men were married fathers, they obviously weren't queer-identified. I read an article on this topic recently that said that it was silly to demand to know if a Tearoom trader identifies as queer; answering such a demand would imply speech—which is a no-no in Tearoom trade situations. The article concluded that queer identification and sexual orientation were situational.