Laud Humphreys' book “Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places” was originally published in 1970. Humphreys received his PhD from Washington University in St. Louis , even though several faculty members have tried to quash it due to its perceived “dishonest” research methods. His book details the activities of homosexual men who regularly visit public baths (tea rooms) for quick, anonymous sex. Since Laud Humphreys was a sociologist, he recognized the simplistic stereotypes society had about impersonal homoerotic activity. The sociologist then observed that it would be of considerable social importance for society to appreciate the motives and patterns of this deviant activity. The results of his study brought to light underlying ideals, which challenged the oppressive nature of society. The study rejected previous myths that assumed that casual sexual encounters in public toilets were practiced by criminals, pedophiles and transients who needed to be prosecuted and locked up by society. According to the book, most of the participants were consenting adult individuals of high moral standing in society. This article examines this book in light of the fundamental sociological questions raised by Humphreys. Humphrey observed many sexual acts from 1966 to 1967 in 19 different men's bathrooms. Although the origin of the term tea rooms, used interchangeably with baths, is unknown, Laud Humphrey refers to them as the place where men often go for sexual encounters. The restrooms were located in five different parks in a city with a population of approximately two million people. In the study of male homosexual encounters in public restrooms, Humphreys posed as a voyeur and lookout, otherwise kn... middle of paper... had a positive result. I believe the results are more accurate when people don't know they are being studied. People act more comfortably and this is certainly a way to obtain the best results, unlike people who know they are being studied and tend to provide different answers. Humphrey also uses statistics to show the percentages of people engaging in such behaviors to show us where they came from and what their social environments were like. Nowadays, it is unethical to do so and collect data and study people without their consultation as this can invade privacy. This study raises fundamental questions about the moral fabric and the role of religious and political institutions in giving direction to hidden deviant actions. The most “flawless” people we perceive in society are the ones who most engage in such deviant behaviors.