My breastplate of righteousness?

Well how about that reference to Ephesians? Anyway, who knew that the founding of the Christian Right could have such colorful characters as Billy James Hargis! While denouncing the public sexual culture and building around the politics of sexual regulation and shame, Hargis himself was involved in relationships that seem to have been homosexual in nature. Was he gay? The Christian Right's pro-family movement was offset by the fact that outwardly sexual conservatives often participated in the sexual "improprieties" they were famous for condemning. Apparently, in response to these indiscretions, men (and women?) formed something known as the concept of "the breastplate of righteousness" which caused them to hate the things that they often indulged in. This ideal would fuel moral and political crusades against sexuality in the future. My first question is: is sexual morality a bad thing really; followed by where can I find Humphreys' "Tearoom Trade", a book which is apparently an influential study of the public's sexual activity. Laud Humphreys himself seems to be an interesting individual along with the fact of having authored the book. His distinction between homosexuals and those who participated in homosexual acts was quite telling as well, furthering my interest as the subject question is one that has interested me. After all, why would a man who is not homosexual engage in such acts "desiring kicks without commitment"? Can he not receive such from a woman? And then why would someone who had those urges identify as heterosexual and actually marry? The findings of Humphreys' Tearoom experiment were surprising to me: 54% of those who had been involved in the homosexual activities were married men living with their wives! This really does, as the reading says: "(strike) a blow against the notion that the sexual universe could be neatly divided into straight and gay, perverted and normal." It sure does so for me. It will take a while to work through the idea but the fact that these same people were also politically and religiously conservative was also quite surprising. The results of Humphreys' questions based on four specific social issues were also interesting, offering more support for his conclusions. The public saint/private sinner dilemma could not be better expressed! In this way, Janice M. Irvine's reflective paper on Humphreys' "Breastplate of Righteousness" is an enthralling piece which describes and analyzes things which hold much bearing on society of today. The conclusions that she comes to are a bit odd for me to hear but I will nonetheless take them to heart. I mean this when she says "it is moral entrepreneurs who have defined it as such" (referring to sex in general but public sex in particular as problematic.) The Sociological explanation that it's all down to "social control and sexual stigma" seems to not explain the situation the best for me on a personal level but I can see where this conclusion comes from. To be sure, this occurrence is very interesting to me.