I think the issue here is that the author uses the wrong tool to evaluate the behavior. The better view is to look at this from the viewpoint of the congressman. In his mind, two things are true.

1) Behaviors like anonymous blow jobs are compelling or, using economics terms, have a high positive utility. Most people extrapolate their own preferences to others, so in his mind these are things that people will want to do. Basically, while most people have little desire for impersonal oral sex in public restrooms, that view would be counterintuitive to him.

2) These same behaviors are evil and sinful, or once again, have a high negative utility. As compelling and alluring as they might be, they are also to be avoided and are harmful to your soul. This isn't really hypocritical either. For example, no one would think a recovered alcoholic who viewed alcohol as evil was hypocritical.

Given those points, he was (internally) rational with his legislative agenda. Faced with a clearly attractive behavior, a clear way for him to make the overall attractivenees of the behavior (i.e. net utility) less attractive overall would be to amplify the penalties of that behavior and the likelihood of being caught -- for both himself and society overall. What the author ignores is that this agenda may well have been as much about (consciously or subconsciously) creating a disincentive for the congressman himself.

Note that all of the above is only looking at this from his point of view. i.e. I'm not making any claims about the appeal of consensual mutual masturbation or the validity of #2 above. Empirically, the this approach is clearly very healthy for late night comedians' careers while unhealthy for him professionally and physically (especially if no condoms were likely to be involved). If anything, this is a clear demonstration that "rational" and "correct" don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

While no one would call an ex-alcoholic a hypocrite, congressman Allen is not an ex-blowjob giver. This behavior has not been absent from his lifestyle for long enough to constitute a "recovery".

I also disagree that the likelihood of getting caught or the use of condoms are in any way a factor in this discussion. Congressman Allen's concerns (publically) are regarding the immorality of the act itself on a spiritual or metaphysical level. He is not concerned about proliferating STD's, indicated by how casually he clearly thinks about the physical act itself.

All Christians benefit, much as they suffer, from the cover of original sin. Congressman Allen likely will never see himself as a hypocrite because even if he engaged in this behavior completely, he would simply argue that "humans are sinners". As a result, while he disapproves of the behavior, he is not a hypocrite because he is "flawed". This is just an easy out that he is certain to use, though I am certain that his political career is at an end.

For what it's worth, I feel more attention should be paid to his justification then currently is. If I follow what he has said correctly, Allen is essentially admitting he is so scared of "black men" that he, not being a homosexual himself, would blow another guy for protection from a group that had not to that point, actually threatened him.

Strange world in which we live...

I posit a slightly different view, but only in the particulars; your utilitarian approach points out some underlying psychological impulses that may well have been at play here. As the police adage goes: "Criminals want to get caught."