"Gay troops have been showering alongside straight troops for quite a while. The same is true of professional athletes, students at dorms with communal showers, and gyms across the country."
Yes, this is obvious.
Those who are harping on the shower issue have lost track of the pervasive reality that we can't know and can't police what is in another person's mind — and that people frequently think sexual thoughts. It's utterly routine to encounter people who are thinking about having sex with you. Sometimes these are people you would regard as acceptable sexual partners and sometimes they're not. So what? It's insane to let that bother you. If they don't say anything or do anything or act out in any way, it's nothing to us. If your ability to go about doing what you need to do is undermined by worrying about other people's sexual thoughts, then you are abnormal. It's ironic for the people who think homosexuals are abnormal to believe that heterosexuals are abnormal.
December 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
382 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 382 of 382Shouldn't the rule be: people in the military cannot have sex with other people in the military?
Scott, do you not see how the reality is not similar?
And, yeah, I was really surprised that I'm the first to mention it myself.
But if your'e going to cordon off men and women on sexual grounds and treat women with the respect of not being FORCED to be ogled by men, and treat men by extension as needing to be separated from women because otherwise they would resort to raping women, then wny cna't men be treated with the same respect. or tell women to get over themselves.
I'm with Ann on this one. Are people honestly afraid of being homo-raped at the gym? Or is the notion that a gay person might look at your man-bits too troubling? I've never taken a poll at my gym, but I would imagine that more than a few are gay (inevitable in San Francisco). I just don't see the issue unless people are actually behaving inappropriately.
"When was the last time you showered with other people that you might not know very well?"
Uh, at the gym.
Seven Machos said...
Shouldn't the rule be: people in the military cannot have sex with other people in the military?
Common sense shows up.
I would like Ann and all the female commenters to come and shower with me, but their names will be changed to Bubba, Bub, Jock etc.
And THEN
If you have my back, I will have your's
Blue@9 wrote:
I'm with Ann on this one. Are people honestly afraid of being homo-raped at the gym? Or is the notion that a gay person might look at your man-bits too troubling? I've never taken a poll at my gym, but I would imagine that more than a few are gay (inevitable in San Francisco). I just don't see the issue unless people are actually behaving inappropriately.
What do you think about women who go to a gym that only allows women (lucille Roberts). Do you think the last gym really had nothing but sexual predators at it? Are women being unreasonable about not wanting guys to ogle them while working out? Why should a gym cater to a womans privacy and not simply have an open area and then treat each infraction as an infraction?
Or is the notion that a gay person might look at your man-bits too troubling?
Possible and understandable. Again, I had an old girlfriend who didn't like going to the gym because she felt uncomfortable being oogled by the guys while she was trying to work out. Perhaps her 'men phobia' is unfounded, maybe she should have 'just gotten over it'.
Perhaps her 'men phobia' is unfounded, maybe she should have 'just gotten over it'.
I'm curious: did she ever confront them about it, that is about their assholery?
I've often wondered what to tell the daughter if this happens to her. (Although she doesn't go to a gym to work out.) It hasn't happened to her yet, that I know of.
Or to put in another way Blue@9, suppose I said this:
"I'm with Ann on this one. Are women honestly afraid of being hetero-raped at the gym? Or is the notion that a man might look at your woman-bits too troubling?"
Wouldn't you then really have an issue with women being overly sensitive about men chekcing out their junk? Are you going to call women on it? Is Ann? Aren't women demanding facilities that don't allow for guys to check them out sexually (even though many guys will probably not be blatant about their ogling) being unreasonable, and shouldn't THEY be forced to endure any potential ogling, rather than instead treating guys as oglers.
The underlying premise is that men are sexual predators. Now, this may or may not be true. But if men cannot be trusted to be in the same room as those they might view sexually, why are gays allowed? Gays are men, with the same urges as hetero men.Since hetero men are incapable of being in the same room as those they desire sexually, why would gay men be exempt from that.And if women are uncomfortorable from men simply watching them take showers, on the premise that the men might be thinking sexual thoughts,why should men be forced to endure the exact same thing?
Apparently, jr, the short answer is that we've already been enduring it without knowing what we were enduring.
ScottM wrote:
Apparently, jr, the short answer is that we've already been enduring it without knowing what we were enduring.
Except now we know what we're enduring. The equivalent of not knowing that the shower had a camera in it and then finding out that there was a camera there.
Shouldn't the rule be: people in the military cannot have sex with other people in the military?
Common sense shows up.
Uhm... I'm thinking there's already rules for that.
Uhm... I'm thinking there's already rules for that.
While common sense frowns upon work place relationships--what is the saying....?
However, such things do happen, often to the detriment of others around them.
Plus, it is the avowed goal of some pro-DADT commenters here to "make the military like the workplace."
As for the existing rules, I'd worry more about other existing rules first.
wv = "nosical" getting all nosey in a whimsical fashion.
I'm curious: did she ever confront them about it, that is about their assholery?
Dunno, never really went that much into it with her. That was just her response when I asked her if she wanted to work out together.
I've often wondered what to tell the daughter if this happens to her.
Well, I suppose it should be deal with it. I mean unless oogling turns into physical contact what's the harm? I'm being somewhat tongue 'n cheek here because that seems to be a lot of what I'm hearing in this thread.
Uhm... I'm thinking there's already rules for that.
Please provide those rules and how they are implemented and please discuss which are formal UCMJ and which are more traditional and informal guidelines.
I'm guessing you don't know or even have second-hand experience from someone that was actually in.
Gays are men, with the same urges as hetero men. Since hetero men are incapable of being in the same room as those they desire sexually, why would gay men be exempt from that.
You think that lowly of heterosexual men??? WOW. Maybe us gays "DO" have a super power you straight men don't! I never realized self discipline was a superpower and a trait that only gays possessed.
Actually, I take that back. Now I understand where you're coming from. You've not lived in a world where you had to suppress your sexuality and your desires at any point in your life. you see a hot chick, and you can go "Wow! She f*cking HOT"! You've not lived in a world where you had to keep sexual desires at bay, self monitor every move you make, every word you say, lest someone find out your dirty little secret, that you're gay, which, in some sector could get you beat to hell, or worse yet.. killed. And yes, I had someone I truly cared about - loved - that was bashed to death.
My experiences / circumstances of course are maybe not the same as all other gay people. But I bet most of the others here can relate to some of that.
Anyway, maybe we're talking past each other because one group understands self discipline when it comes to things sexual, as a life preserving strategy, that the other side simply cannot comprehend.
In reality Madison Man, of all the gyms I worked out at, I only saw a few incidents of outright boorish behavior toward the ladies. I mean I'll check out a hottie like the next guy but I try to be a discreet. You never know if the guy benching 350lbs next to you is her BF.
But the actuality is, most women know they're being 'checked out' and just accept it for what it is.
"Blogger Marshal said...
"Actually, society doesn't have men and women shower together. "
Yup, and "society" hasn't had gay marriage. So case closed, STFU.
I'm guessing you don't know or even have second-hand experience from someone that was actually in..
Uhm... I've had first hand experience...
OK. That was just gross. But it was there, so I took it!
I can look up the rules if you want. I can also get you in touch with some of my former military friends if you are really that distrusting.
Sonicfrog, lets examine Ann's statement:
Those who are harping on the shower issue have lost track of the pervasive reality that we can't know and can't police what is in another person's mind — and that people frequently think sexual thoughts. It's utterly routine to encounter people who are thinking about having sex with you. Sometimes these are people you would regard as acceptable sexual partners and sometimes they're not. So what? It's insane to let that bother you. If they don't say anything or do anything or act out in any way, it's nothing to us. If your ability to go about doing what you need to do is undermined by worrying about other people's sexual thoughts, then you are abnormal. It's ironic for the people who think homosexuals are abnormal to believe that heterosexuals are abnormal.
Couldn't the exact same thing be said as to why we don't allow men and women to shower togetehr in the first place. Wouldn't the issue really be that women are abnormal because their ability to go about doing what they're doing is undermined by worrying about other peoples sexual thoughts (namely the guys they are just sure are going to rape them should they show a bit of skin in the shower).
Didn't the military set up all these rules to protect women and show respect for womens desires for privacy? ARen't thes rules as unfounded as the ones saying that heteros and gays showering together would be similarly uneventful?
Be honest. I don't think Ann is particularly honest on this issue when it comes to womens relationships with men, yet seems to think the same rules shouldn't or wouldnt' apply with gays and heteros, when the exact same dynamic is in place.
Ok - whose civvie gym has open bay showers with like 20 showerheads? I've belonged to gyms in several major cities, yet never seen that. Sure, it was like that in high school (which definitely operated on a DADT-like system) and that's how it is on Army bases, but at a civilian gym? Usually a common change area where on disrobes, wraps a towel and then walks to a row of shower stalls.
Sonic
I'm former military. I'm fully aware of the rules and the lack thereof.
Anyway, maybe we're talking past each other because one group understands self discipline when it comes to things sexual, as a life preserving strategy, that the other side simply cannot comprehend.
You misunderstand what he was trying to say. Men have been treated like we're all potential predators, regardless of the fact that the overwhelming majority of us are not. His point was, why should gay men be treated any differently than straight men in this regard.
sonicfrog wrote:
You think that lowly of heterosexual men??? WOW. Maybe us gays "DO" have a super power you straight men don't! I never realized self discipline was a superpower and a trait that only gays possessed.
The military seems to otherwise what's the harm in allowing men and women to cohabitate or shower together. Women seem to, and seem to demand that they not have to have guys watch them when they shower. Do you think that no guy could control himself were he in the same shower as a woman? Yet the military forces them to be separate. So apparaently, men couldn't control themselves, hence the need to separate men from women. If men are so bad with their impusle control, such that they need to be spearated from those they view with sexual attraction, and since gays are men with the same lack of impulse control then why would you allow gay men to be in the same room as those they find sexually attractive.
Actually, I take that back. Now I understand where you're coming from. You've not lived in a world where you had to suppress your sexuality and your desires at any point in your life. you see a hot chick, and you can go "Wow! She f*cking HOT"! You've not lived in a world where you had to keep sexual desires at bay, self monitor every move you make, every word you say
Please, do you think heteros aren't forced to keep their sexual desires at bay, especially in the military? If half the men were as up front about females in the military as you suggest they are, they wouldn't be in the military beause they'd be booted out of it for conduct unbecoming.
Not too muddy the issue, but why does everyone assume this is a men-only issue? Granted, few women are commenting on this, but I would assume - and, again, the shower thing is a minor issue in the larger debate - there are some women that dislike the idea of being approached by an aggressive lesbian.
If this isn't a problem, why have gender-segregated showers in the first place?
ScottM
"You misunderstand what he was trying to say."
He doesn't misunderstand at all. He refuses to address it because doing so would require he admit his argument is not sufficient to support his conclusions. The first thing you're taught in political activist circles is how to avoid issues which don't support your cause.
"Not too muddy the issue, but why does everyone assume this is a men-only issue?"
It's harder to cast women as bigots. They're more sympathetic.
Ok - whose civvie gym has open bay showers with like 20 showerheads?
The four gyms I've gone to at the UW all have, or had, in the case of the Red Gym, communal showers. The one gym I've been to in Middleton -- Harbor -- also does, and the one I belonged to when I lived in Louisiana ages ago did as well.
AllenS wrote:
Tell me, Professor, would you feel uncomfortable to have to take all of your showers with the Badgers mens basketball team? After all, and I'll somewhat quote Wilber: How fragile do they think professors are?
Im thinking of that scene in Jerry Maguire where the female sports reporter is in the male locker room interviewing one of the athletes and his towel falls down and she has to quickly look down and look away and drops her microphone. Point being women have to be accomodated and must be allowed to interview the guys, but propriety must be maintained. Yet, how many women are going to let male reporters interview them while they are getting out of the showers.
Screw that. Under the new Althouse rules she should be able to go into the mens locker room and he shouldn't even have to wear a towel. And similarly the men reporters should be able to interview the female athletes with the same nonchalance while they're nude. ANd if, anyone complains that they don't like to be ogled THEY are the ones who need to be corrected because they are simpy being insensitive
If you go to a gym in a city, and you are naked there, I can assure you that you are being seen by gay men.
If you went to college, and you showered there, I can assure you that you were seen by someone who has given or received a blow job from a man.
There are real, serious issues with gays in the military. Homosexuality ruined the Catholic church, an analogous institution to the military in many ways. But showering in front of gay people is the absolute least of the problems.
But showering in front of gay people is the absolute least of the problems.
And is, currently in this discussion, only being used as an analogy to the bigger problem of generally segregated close living conditions that exist in the military every day.
I don't see a problem with living conditions. I see a problem with superiors forcing sex on people lower in rank, just like priests used their rank to molest boys.
So long as that doesn't happen, and so long as gays don't get the living shit beat out of them and the military looks the other way, I don't see much of an issue here. As I have said for a long time, if it's okay with the military chiefs, it's okay with me. I just want to have a military that kicks the shit out of every other military with relative ease.
"I don't see a problem with living conditions."
That's well and good for you. What empowers you to make the choice for others?
What empowers you to make the choice for others?
You must have stopped reading my post at that point. Please continue. Read the part where I suggested that it's okay with me if the people who are empowered think it's okay. The implication is that it's not okay with me if those people don't think it's okay.
What empowers you to make that choice?
Luckily, by the way, we don't have a draft. You do not have to be in the military. Further, this is a law easily rescinded.
First, Scott, thank you for your service.
I took the rules comment to mean that there were no rules against sex, which of course there are (i.e. fraternizing with officers, which includes sex). I didn't read the post as referring to rule against ANY sex at all, between any soldiers. I wouldn't be opposed to that, but it would be awfully difficult, almost impossible to enforce.
That said, doesn't articles 120, 133, and 134 of the UCMJ cover sexual misconduct?
There should be no sex between people in the military. It's not a regular job. It's the vital job of killing people and breaking things so we can be free.
"Read the part where I suggested that it's okay with me if the people who are empowered think it's okay."
The military chiefs you mention aren't effected by this rule. They have private quarters. Why do you believe the opinions of those effected shouldn't matter?.
"Luckily, by the way, we don't have a draft. You do not have to be in the military."
This reasoning could just as easily be applied to keep DADT. It means nothing.
jr565 said:
Please, do you think heteros aren't forced to keep their sexual desires at bay, especially in the military? If half the men were as up front about females in the military as you suggest they are, they wouldn't be in the military beause they'd be booted out of it for conduct unbecoming.
BINGO!
As I said at the very beginning of this conversation... It's all about self discipline! And one could postulate we're even better at it because we've been doing it for most of our lives, to protect our lives! Practice may not make perfect... but it does make pretty good!
Feeling a desire is not the same as acting on it. If you act on it, you're out. That is sensible. But to be kicking out because you "feel" a desire?
There's one very simple reason why separation for the sex makes sense. There are only two sexes, so it is easily implemented.
Separating individuals is much harder, though having partitions between showers does sound sensible.
Why do you believe the opinions of those effected shouldn't matter?
Because we live in a democratic republic. More importantly, because it is a first-order principle in this country that the military is subservient to the Congress, the executive, and the courts.
Finally, what some gunnery sergeant thinks doesn't matter. That person is not ultimately responsible for winning battles are wars.
Also, it's "affected."
Finally, my simple no-sex rule solves everything.
"Several callers said they have sons, daughters, nephews, what-ever that may not enlist because of gays now simply being allowed to serve openly in the military."
Ask a recruiter who the enemy is and he just might say "mothers."
As much as it's ridiculous to say that privacy isn't a legitimate issue, it's also true that many of the regulations about those privacy issues have most to do with the civilian population and civilian mores and attitudes.
It's still stupid to say that privacy isn't an issue, though. Of course it is. And in situations where we don't have privacy we humans manage to pretend rather strongly that we do.
Athouse made the initial claim that "we can't know" what other people are thinking. Truly, we don't want to know and we go to lengths not to know. The understanding that any random given person might be thinking something still allows denial. What has changed might not be who is in the shower with you, but that now you really *do* know.
jr565, Scott M
One point. Though we disagree, I'm glad not one us have taken the low road and started using ad-homs or personal invectives.
I'm always happy to know there are good people around who can have a go-around and not stoop to that level. it does nothing for the argument, and only makes the slanderer look silly.
If you are an attractive woman, say, sitting across from me on the CTA, you probably do not want to know what I am thinking. I do promise that I won't act on any of it.
One point. Though we disagree, I'm glad not one us have taken the low road and started using ad-homs or personal invectives.
Who do you think I am? Palladian?
Honestly though, thanks for pointing it out.
I'm a gay man who frequents the gym about 5 days a week. When I go into the locker room area, I barely make eye contact with anyone. I'm not looking for sex and frankly, most of the trolls wandering around wouldn't be to my liking anyhow.
Here's the thing: even if I KNEW the gym was populated with entirely gay men, I wouldn't be cruising for sex. I go to the gym to work out. End of story.
Straight men: quit thinking all gay men want you. 9 times out of 10, you're probably invisible to them anyhow.
Most of us are quite capable of separating work and "play".
Get over yourselves already.
The understanding that any random given person might be thinking something still allows denial. What has changed might not be who is in the shower with you, but that now you really *do* know.
Point taken. But the thing is, is you're probably still not going to know, because the gay soldier won't likely share that info with you unless he or she feels they can trust your confidence.
As I said before, most of the people that I know who are gay and were in the military would not have made a point to raise the issue. I expect most of those who are gay and planning on enlisting won't advertise, because they are there to be soldiers first and foremost. They are soldiers first, who just happen to be gay, and find life is easier if it's not made a big deal of.
To paraphrase Rob Zechman :
Straight women: quit thinking all wtraight men want you. 7 times out of 10, you're probably invisible to them anyhow.
Most of us are quite capable of separating work and "play".
Get over yourselves already.
If those are the rules for the women in the military,then thats fine. Only those arent't the rulesin the miiltary, and most women I know would feel completly uncomfororable if a business they frequented were set up with that attitude. Until those are the rules for men and women, why should gays and lesbians alone be allowed to make others uncomfortorable in the military.
Rob: I think most of these people are just angling to get to look at some pussy. I can understand that. I also don't think they understand how often they've been seen naked by gay men.
Sonicfrong wrote:
They are soldiers first, who just happen to be gay, and find life is easier if it's not made a big deal of.
YOu know how they can make the least big deal about it? Don't tell about it. And don't have anyone ask about it. Keep it out of the service while you're there soit doesn't become a distraction to your work.
JR -- Why does it make you uncomfortable to be seen nude by someone of the same gender who likes to have sex with people of your gender? That's pretty odd, really.
Seven Machos wrote:
Why does it make you uncomfortable to be seen nude by someone of the same gender who likes to have sex with people of your gender? That's pretty odd, really.
Why would women feel uncomforable being seen nude by members of the opposite gender who want to have sex with people of that gender.
And hell, some people don't like to be seen by people of either gender sexual or otherwise.
Sonicfrog said:
As I said before, most of the people that I know who are gay and were in the military would not have made a point to raise the issue. I expect most of those who are gay and planning on enlisting won't advertise, because they are there to be soldiers first and foremost. They are soldiers first, who just happen to be gay, and find life is easier if it's not made a big deal of.
Yeah... What he said! We're not all lisping, rainbow flag waiving, nipple piercing, lisping homo's you know!!!
PS. I really don't care for those guys much... Uh Oh... Does that make me a homophobe too??? :-)
But, JR, if you are nude in front of a group of random men, ever, you are nude in front of gay men, or at least men who engaged in gay activities. In other words, this is something you have been dealing with your entire life.
jr565:
YOu know how they can make the least big deal about it? Don't tell about it. And don't have anyone ask about it. Keep it out of the service while you're there so it doesn't become a distraction to your work.
And the circle is complete. AS you see in all the other military's that have an open policy, I'm pretty sure, with one or two exceptions, that is exactly what you'll get.
Apparently only straight men are abnormal.
Goddamned freaks.
First of all, I think the military should be the ones who make the rules about DADT since they are the ones who have to live with the results.
Most Congress people barely have a clue about anything and really shouldn't be allowed to futz around with rules that they don't understand. They should all be given a Ball of Whacks and left alone to drool over that for a while.
If DADT was enforced policy for all military personnel, straight or otherwise, I would support it.
I'm for that. I'm for it in civilian life as well. Don't ask, don't tell, shut the Hell up about your sex life when you are at work.
On the other hand if you are gay and would like to casually mention what you got your same sex spouse or significant other for Christmas or any other innocuous bit of information, or have a photo of your family that may include a same sex S.O... that doesn't seem like a heinous offense that should result in courtmartial etc.
It is hard not to be able to talk even in general terms, about part of your life and about those that you love who are important to you, especially if you are in a situation where you don't know if you will ever see them again.
Second: Joining the military is voluntary, just like joining a nudist colony. Deal with it. Just because there may be naked people about.....no matter what your sexual orientation is, it does not excuse bad or offensive behaviour.
I'm not gay, but I'm pretty sure that I could shower with any of the straight guys or gals, gay guys or gals or anyone else who posts on this forum (because we aren't sure about the gender of some of the notorious sock puppets :-) and not become a slavering slave to sexual appetites. Just because you are gay doesn't mean that the person lacks control.
If they do lack control, THEN you wouldn't want them in the military or in any other occupation.
Not having been in the military, it is academic for me....so I am more than willing to let the military decide.
"Straight men: quit thinking all gay men want you. 9 times out of 10, you're probably invisible to them anyhow."
This applies to women being uncomfortable with men seeing them as well.
It's really very simple. Gay men do not lust after every man, even the hot ones. Gay men do not "ogle" every man, even the hot ones. Simply put, a gay man already has a penis, sees one every day, and it's not just a guy naked in the shower that starts a whole process of ogling and lusting. Sure, gay guys might have a light passing thought wondering what another guy has, but that doesn't mean he wants to suck it. It is NOT TRUE that gay men relate to other men the same way straight men relate to women, and if you think that is the case, you haven't been around enough gay men to know better. Nudity is usually so passe that it's not a special dirty secret opportunity like it is when a straight man sees a naked woman. Straight men need to understand this, that gay men are not like them and do not approach sexuality, nudity, and the like in the same way. Listen one more time, straight guys, gay men do not look at you the same way you look at women, period. It's a different animal altogether.
It surprises me how many commenters here seem to think that how people feel about being looked at sexually is the reason that men and women typically have segregated showers.
Can those of you who think that gay & straight people showering together is analagous to men and women showering together really not think of any other differences between men and women besides their presumed sexual orientation that would lead to gender segregated bathing as the norm? Really?
Marshal -- Here's another thing, there is no great political clamoring for women and men to be naked together. Nobody's pushing for it to happen.
Which is sad. We should all get to see more pussy of all varieties. But you are trying to bring up something that just isn't an issue.
Clint said:
Nudity is usually so passe that it's not a special dirty secret opportunity like it is when a straight man sees a naked woman.
Are you saying that gay men need a little extra help getting going in these matters?
"Can those of you who think that gay & straight people showering together is analagous to men and women showering together really not think of any other differences between men and women besides their presumed sexual orientation that would lead to gender segregated bathing as the norm? Really?"
I only saw a single suggestion and that was "men rape women."
Do you have anything else to offer other than "it's so obvious you're stupid not to see it?"
"Point taken. But the thing is, is you're probably still not going to know, because the gay soldier won't likely share that info with you unless he or she feels they can trust your confidence."
Which is fine. Pretty much business as usual.
Unless the military enacts some specific accommodations and starts *asking*, which they're certainly allowed to do now.
This is why I preferred "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Care."
If the military makes any particular accommodations for gay members it has to identify them. It's got to ask. At that point anonymity isn't an option.
The difference is between a soldier who just happens to be gay but doesn't tell (and I thought that was the "bad" way) and a person who is "out" and identifying publicly because doing so is dreadfully important.
I can see, certainly, that keeping a secret is a problem. But would "be discrete" be seen as the same sort of oppression?
I'm thinking that for a lot of people, particularly activists, "be discrete" is the exact same thing as "keep a secret."
Clint wrote:
Listen one more time, straight guys, gay men do not look at you the same way you look at women, period. It's a different animal altogether.
How do you know the way straight men look at women since you're not straight. or if you're straight how do you know how gay men look at men. Are you able to look into someones soul to see what straight men are thinking, or do straight men have a special eye movement that is different than a gays when they see someone they find sexually attractive. Like maybe their left eyebrow lifts or they start twirling their moustache?
I only saw a single suggestion and that was "men rape women."
Yeah, but only the rapists do that... Unless of course, ALL men are rapists! :-)
"Since hetero men are incapable of being in the same room as those they desire sexually, why would gay men be exempt from that."
Because they're men?
This is what I was getting at with my previous comment; men and women don't typically shower together in non-intimate contexts because they are different in other ways besides the assumed direction of their attractions or degree of randiness. For instance, men on average are bigger and stronger. Men, on average, are more aggressive and their tendency to be more sexually aggressive is generally reinforced by social norms. In other words, whether it's justified in a specific instance or not, women historically have good reason to feel physically vulnerable in a situation where the genders would intermingle while nude. When you're talking about gay and straight men together in a shower, it would take a majority group of gay men hell bent on rape facing a single or minority of straight men to justify a legitimate sense of physical threat.
Two thought experiments for the gay+straight = men+women crowd.
1) Would having gay men and straight women bathe together be an acceptable solution?
2) Before the American occupation after WWII, the hot springs of which Japanese people are so fond were not typically gender segregated, and still today there are sometimes "family" areas where men and women bathe together with their children. What do you suppose is the difference that makes this such a not-big-deal to them?
When I lived in Europe, I frequently sat nude in saunas and steam rooms with nude women. Some were hot. Some were disgusting.
I was never uncomfortable. Sometimes I was super awesome happy comfortable.
Listen one more time, straight guys, gay men do not look at you the same way you look at women, period. It's a different animal altogether.
I guess that explains why there is no such thing as gay porn. Apparently gay dudes just aren't interested in other men's junk.
Gay men are used to showering with other nude men. So they don't get all excited or embarrassed about it.
If you showered with nude women all the time, it would become very normal very soon.
Ever been to a topless beach? Tits everywhere. After 20 minutes, it's pretty blah. More tits. Big deal.
P.Minnow wrote:
For instance, men on average are bigger and stronger. Men, on average, are more aggressive and their tendency to be more sexually aggressive is generally reinforced by social norms. In other words, whether it's justified in a specific instance or not, women historically have good reason to feel physically vulnerable in a situation where the genders would intermingle while nude. When you're talking about gay and straight men together in a shower, it would take a majority group of gay men hell bent on rape facing a single or minority of straight men to justify a legitimate sense of physical threat.
Why does it have to be a matter of physical threat? Women may not like men ogling them not because they are afraid that they are going to be raped by that person, but because they simply don't like being ogled by men when they are trying to take a shower and are at their most vulnerable.And why can't men have the same feeling? They don't want to be ogled, sexually while they are taking a shower by people they view are looking at them in a lacivious manner. In the first case the response, is totally undertandable, we should treat all men like potential rapists so that you can be assured that none look at you in any manner which you deem objectionable while you're taking a shower and in the other case its tough shit and take it, do you think all gays are rapists?
I'd like to have the same standard applied to hetero guys thanks. If its no big deal for gays to look at straight men or other gays so long as tehy don't act upon it, it should be no big deal for me to look at who I want, so long as I dont act upon it. Right?
p minnow said:
What do you suppose is the difference that makes this such a not-big-deal to them?
Size?
Seven machos wrote:
If you showered with nude women all the time, it would become very normal very soon.
Ever been to a topless beach? Tits everywhere. After 20 minutes, it's pretty blah. More tits. Big deal.
so again, what's the hangups with men showering with women? I'd think the hangup would in fact be the women. So tell them to get over themselves already. Are you prepared to do that?
JR -- Lesbianism is taboo, but not nearly so taboo as homosexuality. Why?
Florence King once suggested that the reason this: if all the men in the world were gay, we'd have no babies ever. If all the women in the world were gay, we'd plenty of babies, only more rape.
Women and men are different. In serious, immutable ways. All societies account for that.
JR -- The hangup is with women. Men showering with other men is not a big deal in any society. I'll be showering with other men later tonight, after I work out. I'm at Equinox in the Gold Coast, so a lot of those dudes will be gay.
Can those of you who think that gay & straight people showering together is analagous to men and women showering together really not think of any other differences between men and women besides their presumed sexual orientation that would lead to gender segregated bathing as the norm? Really?
Really? I can't.
What are those differences, besides sex, that you think makes it impossible for men and women to use the same bathing/showering facilities.
Height of the showerhead?
Different types of soap? No where to put your feet when shaving our legs? Not enough places for lotions and cosmetics?
Farting in the shower or peeing in the shower?.....women do it too you know.
Forgetting to put the toilet seat down?
I really can't think of any reason, other than modesty (which obviously I don't have much of) or personal preference that would make it impossible to shower together.
Seven Machos wrote:
Women and men are different. In serious, immutable ways. All societies account for that.
And there are rules in the military for sexual conduct. So obviously if you are raping women, you are breaching military ettiquette. So, it's kind of a red herring. And at any rate, even if there would be more rapes, the number of rapists in comparison to the number of men is extremely small. Woulnd't we treat men as rapists only after then commited rape and not before? So then agian, what is the issue with segregating out the sexes. Let them all take big communal showers.
Let them all take big communal showers.
JR -- Your big slippery slope argument fails because there is no political movement for men and women to take big communal showers. You should start it. I'm serious. If it means that much to you, make it your life's work.
In the mean time, what you have to understand or stop ignoring is the fact that there has been a massive political movement to allow openly gay people into the military involving many, many people; most of the best colleges; a Supreme Court case; Congress; and many other actors. And those people won in a democratic process.
Dust Bunny queen wrote:
I really can't think of any reason, other than modesty (which obviously I don't have much of) or personal preference that would make it impossible to shower together.
is modesty immaterial? If you ran the military and a question came up about wethere we should have the sexes cohabitate (shower and sleep in the same barracks together) would you tell the women to get over their modesty and suck it up?
Seven Machos wrote:
Your big slippery slope argument fails because there is no political movement for men and women to take big communal showers. You should start it. I'm serious. If it means that much to you, make it your life's work.
Whether there is or isn't a political movement is immaterial to the principal involved. You're telling men who might not be comfortorable with gay men being able to look at them in a shower to simply suck it up. Why doens't the same principle hold when it comes to men and women? Not all men are rapists. if they're not, then shouldn't women have to similarly get over themselves? Or do you think men should automatically be treated like rapists, and we should respect the rihts of women to assume that men are ogling them and thus separate men from women, but men (or women with lesbians) have to simply grin and bear it, despite potentialy haveing the exact same objections to being ogled. Especially since gays are men, and men are sexual deviants (hence the need to protect women from them).
It's pretty funny that our host got her panties all in a bunch about a fake-sexist remark / objectification by a Lucas-invented furry fictional character, and yet any straight men who feel the least bit uncomfortable about a situation that goes against a lifetime of socialization should just get over it. It's comforting to know that good old sexist feminism is not yet dead in Madison.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/search?q=wicket+
If you ran the military and a question came up about wethere we should have the sexes cohabitate (shower and sleep in the same barracks together) would you tell the women to get over their modesty and suck it up?
Yes.
We live in a democracy, JR. Not an undergraduate philosophy course.
lyssalovelyredhead said...
Is there any occupation or function in our society that should be off limits to . . . men who are sexually attracted to women?
Pastry Chef. Or am I the only one who watched "Top Chef: Just Desserts"?
===================
I watched a few episodes of that and have to say while the contestants male and female had stunning creativity - the over the top effeminency of some of the male chefs was past tolerable into repulsive territory.
It was at a level where Carson from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would have bitch-slapped Zac and Yigit and told them to "Man Up".
Fortunately, the show also had some pastry babes and IMO, the most creative male chef was, as my wife said "The Straight Hunk from Texas", Morgan.
The difference is between a soldier who just happens to be gay but doesn't tell (and I thought that was the "bad" way) and a person who is "out" and identifying publicly because doing so is dreadfully important.
No, the simple problem with DADT was that, even if you didn't tell, even if you didn't harass anyone, even if you kept everything to yourself within your unit, if you sent an email back home to the one you loved, and the wrong eyes happen to come across that e-mail, just the fact that you admit you were gay in the e-mal, that would be term for a dishonorable discharge.
Here is something that most don't know about DADT - the full name of the protocol was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue". The "Don't Pursue" part was meant to be in regard to brass not trying to find out, ei. going on a "witch hunt" to find out if someone was gay. It also became a policy that told homosexuals not to pursue a relationship, even on your own time. As a friend and fellow blogger wrote:
"After my technical training to be a aircraft maintenance administrator - I got stationed in the Bay Area, I fell in love and moved in with a boyfriend. I thought the "don't ask, don't tell" policy meant that I just had to keep my business to myself. What I didn't know is thatthe DoD directives also outline that a servicemember must NOT pursue a homosexual lifestyle or encounter"
I can see, certainly, that keeping a secret is a problem. But would "be discrete" be seen as the same sort of oppression?
All depends on what the working definition of "being discrete" is.
Dust Bunny Queen wrote:
Yes.
You woulnd't work at the military long. Once someone complained that they felt like they were putinto an ucomfortorable sexual environment and you told them to stop crying and suck it up, you'd be booted out on your ass.
All depends on what the working definition of "being discrete" is.
Not being continuous.
Reasons that men and women have separate bathrooms that probably don't apply to just men and just women:
1) Women and men have different hygienic needs. Separate facilities decreases conflicts that could arise over use of toilets/sinks/showers. Anyone who has grown up with brothers and sisters knows what I'm talking about.
2) It was already mentioned, but I'll repeat it: Bathrooms and showers are spaces of physical vulnerability. As much as they are nearly equal in ability to perform most tasks, the biological differences with regard to physical size and strength leave women in a disadvantaged position if conduct unbecoming should escalate. (Naturally individuals of the same sex are also made in different sizes and strengths, but that's a little different.)
The assumption that once gay men or lesbians are allowed to not hide their orientation they will become constant sexual predators to their comrades is insulting. There are proper disciplinary procedures if someone misbehaves. Shared showers and dormitories are not okay spaces for sexual behavior. It's inappropriate for all. I would think simple etiquette would prevent any of the scenarios about which people are fretting.
Gay people are gay all day long, not just when they're naked. The gay soldier/marine/whatever standing next to you in uniform does not morph into a different person in a shower or barrack. If someone's sensibilities were so offended by a gay person in their shower, how hard would it be to wait until they're finished before you go in? And if there's not enough time to wait, then I'd guess everyone is in too much of a hurry to be bothered.
Really? Just showering is an uncomfortable sexual environment?
If that is the case, you are right. I wouldn't want to be IN the military full of a bunch of whinning babies.
Sonicfrog wrote:
No, the simple problem with DADT was that, even if you didn't tell, even if you didn't harass anyone, even if you kept everything to yourself within your unit, if you sent an email back home to the one you loved, and the wrong eyes happen to come across that e-mail, just the fact that you admit you were gay in the e-mal, that would be term for a dishonorable discharge.
It sounds like you don't want to abide by the rules though. Suppose instead of carrying on a gay affair you instead were carrying on an extramarital affair. And even though you hid it, the military got wind through an email that you were having said affair. There'd be an investigation and you'd be dishonorably discharged. It's strict, but that's the miitalry for you. Which is why you probably shouldn't have affairs if youre in the miiltary, or do a really good job covering it up.Are you similarly at odds with the miitaries booting of perfectly good men and women who could otherwise do their jobs simply because of extramarital affairs.
Cedarford... Haven't seen you in a while. What's up?
Dust Bunny wrote:
Really? Just showering is an uncomfortable sexual environment?
so say it was 5 nude women surrounded by 20 nude guys all taking showers. You would tell the nude women that they were whiny babies if they didn't feel comfortorable in that situation?
It sounds like you don't want to abide by the rules though. Suppose instead of carrying on a gay affair you instead were carrying on an extramarital affair.
Apples and oranges. Having an extramarital affair IS NOT the same as having a boyfriend or girlfriend, whether you're gay or straight.
What this policy says is that if your gay, you can't even have a loved one back home, you can't pursue ANY type of relationship at all, even in your private life. It would be the same only if the military were to ban ALL soldiers from having ANY kind of relationship, gay or straight.
Wonder what the recruitment numbers would be like if they were to implement that. I kind of have this feeling that most servicemen wouldn't like it too much.
I was going to make a joke about "hey, what do you want us to do, live like priests?", but thought better of it! :-)
Ver Word: Acramone
In a sense, "showering with a gay" guy is a strawman argument that can be knocked down.
The problems I see are:
1. Gays are only 4% of the population and like Jews and upper crust WASPS, are culturally less likely to join the military. Other groups have far higher rates of national service and interest.
2. Those that seek to join come from a group that according to the CDC, has a rate of carrying an incurable communicable disease - HIV - 44 times the rate of straight males and females of any sexual orientation. That means a good chunk of gays would not be permitted to enlist under medical rejection, of AIDS virus, Herpes III, ongoing rectal parasite problems...Under current rules.
3. Gays in the service who get HIV infected should not be allowed to remain in, for safety of others. Unfortunately, military service means bleeding people lugging other bleeding people and blood or tissue from one in contact with other people's open wounds. Transmission is quite possible by vectors other than sex. This isn't a case of some civilian office where a HIV positive co-worker is not deemed a possible disease spreading danger to co-workers. IN the military, they are a danger.
4. Even with DADT, and before DADT, the problem of lifer female Bulldyke NCOs and nurses is a historical problem that HAS affected good order and discipline.
5. The services are not above castigating another branch to gain a recruiting advantage. Woe be to say, the Navy, if it is branded the "Queer Branch", the place all the gays go to outside being AF Base cooks and Radar Queens...by Marine recruiters winking and saying "if you are straight, the Marines are your thing."
6. Pretty soon, it will be quite apparant that the whole "gays in the military" thing was a stalking horse for gay activists that really don't want gays serving in any numbers...but want the moral imprimatur to cite gays serving in the military as reason that gay marriage must be imposed. And children taught in schools that homosexual relationships are healthy and normal just like straight relationships. And the schoolkids taught it is something they should be sure to try and experiment with as they reach their peak sexual attractivness years...unless they are bigoted and fearful.
Sonicfrog wrote:
Apples and oranges. Having an extramarital affair IS NOT the same as having a boyfriend or girlfriend, whether you're gay or straight.
Sure it is. If you're having an extramarital affair you have a boyfriend or girfriend. And the military is saying you can't have that kind of boyfriend/girffriend and still serve in the military. Similarly your extramarital affair (with your boyfriend/girlfriend coudn't even be with someone you had at home. You could have no kinds of extramarital affairs period. Now, if there was a don't ask don't tell for extramarital affairs you could say that the military can't ask you about your extramariatal affair, and you shouldn't bring it up, but if it slipped somehow you'd be booted.
What this policy says is that if your gay, you can't even have a loved one back home, you can't pursue ANY type of relationship at all,
You all still going on about this? :-)
It would have been an interesting discussion 10 years ago perhaps - but it's 2011 Saturday and DADT was repealed.
A friend suggested I work on "blessing" those I don't like and/or don't agree with. I like the suggestion. I like the idea of asking God to bless them even more. For if those who have lost their way and those who are filled with anger, fear and condemnation were to be blessed - I think only good would come of it.
So, in honor of that, and this *military* thread - here is a great old song from WWII England:
bless 'em all
This talk of discomfort is silly, people. You know what's uncomfortable? Shooting somebody at close range. That's uncomfortable. Pulling the lever that drops the bomb that kills innocent little six-year-old kids. That's uncomfortable.
If discomfort is your best argument, you've lost. I suggested some much stronger ones above. Why continue with this silliness?
Ass clown Cedarford arrives. Jews get discussed. Go away, dude. Just go. You are a complete loser.
so say it was 5 nude women surrounded by 20 nude guys all taking showers. You would tell the nude women that they were whiny babies if they didn't feel comfortorable in that situation?
Are the men touching the women? Making sexual advances? Openly leering, drooling and making sexual comments? Hogging the conditioner? Snapping towels at each other's butts?
Or are there just a bunch of men and women showering in a common area?
If it is the first, then the men,or women, if they are the offenders should be disciplined.
Otherwise....yes.... suck it up and quit whinning until you have something to whine about.
The likelyhood of the military forcing men and women to shower together at the same time is almost nil....so I don't know why you are making a BFD about it.
Having women shower together....or having men shower together just makes logistic sense. If we have to have separate showers for every one who doesn't like someone or feels 'uncomfortable' would create chaos.
As long as people behave themselves, what is the problem.
Seven Machos said...
" Marshal -- Here's another thing, there is no great political clamoring for women and men to be naked together. Nobody's pushing for it to happen."
You're right no one is clamoring for this, but this is irrelevant. The point is to refute the liberal argument that the only reason to be uncomfortable showering with people who might find you sexually attracted is bigotry or fear. If these are the only possibilities why do we accept women 's discomfort around men even in circumstances much less revealing than showering?
"Listen one more time, straight guys, gay men do not look at you the same way you look at women, period. It's a different animal altogether."
So I'll repeat: the new gay friendly party line is that anyone who believes there are differences between gays and straights other than orientation is a bigot. Unless it helps them win a policy debate. Then if you deny the difference you're an ignorant bigot.
Thanks for clearing that up.
DBQ wrote: The likelyhood of the military forcing men and women to shower together at the same time is almost nil....so I don't know why you are making a BFD about it.
Having women shower together....or having men shower together just makes logistic sense. If we have to have separate showers for every one who doesn't like someone or feels 'uncomfortable' would create chaos.
Actually, I would say that there will probably be a few commanders who would try just that.
And your second argument would be the justification. Fewer logistics problems if we don't worry about sex when arranging for quarters or hygiene.
"2) Before the American occupation after WWII, the hot springs of which Japanese people are so fond were not typically gender segregated, and still today there are sometimes "family" areas where men and women bathe together with their children. What do you suppose is the difference that makes this such a not-big-deal to them?"
The family unit precludes sexual attraction.
Sure it is. If you're having an extramarital affair you have a boyfriend or girfriend.
OK, now you're just being silly! Under DADT, if you're straight, you can have girlfriend, someone you're sexually / emotionally bonded to, and not be having an affair. If you're gay, you can't have any relationship with a special someone.
And I'm glad you didn't say "oh, but you can still have a girlfriend", because if you're gay, that would not be a real relationship. I doubt it would be acceptable if the rule were reversed and dictated that only gay men could have relations, and straight men would get kicked out of the service if they were caught having any straight relationship at all.
"Seven Machos said...
Ass clown Cedarford arrives. Jews get discussed. Go away, dude. Just go. You are a complete loser."
Care to dispute my contention that like Jews and uppercrust WASPs that the enlistment rate of gays will likely be quite low compared to other demographic groups?
No?
Of course not!
You are like one of the liberals that boils out in self-righteous fury when ANY criticism of Muslims as a group starts. Or gays.
Feel good in your smug self, Seven, as you ignore inconvenient facts..
I actually believe that while still low, a far higher percentage of gays may serve in frontline units in the military than Jews serving in uniform.
Seven Machos said...
Let them all take big communal showers.
JR -- Your big slippery slope argument fails because there is no political movement for men and women to take big communal showers. You should start it. I'm serious. If it means that much to you, make it your life's work.
In the mean time, what you have to understand or stop ignoring is the fact that there has been a massive political movement to allow openly gay people into the military involving many, many people; most of the best colleges; a Supreme Court case; Congress; and many other actors. And those people won in a democratic process.
This is not accurate at all. We don't have "rights" because of a democratic process. Nor is this a result of a democratic process.
Interestingly the same person made these two assertions:
___________________
1) The assumption that once gay men or lesbians are allowed to not hide their orientation they will become constant sexual predators to their comrades is insulting.
2) It was already mentioned, but I'll repeat it: Bathrooms and showers are spaces of physical vulnerability. As much as they are nearly equal in ability to perform most tasks, the biological differences with regard to physical size and strength leave women in a disadvantaged position if conduct unbecoming should escalate. (Naturally individuals of the same sex are also made in different sizes and strengths, but that's a little different.)
_________________________
To be clear, no one here has made the assertion that gays would become sexual predators if allowed openly. But this commentator thinks it would be insulting if someone did. At the same time he holds that women have to be segregated from straight men to protect them from rape.
So how odd. We shouldn't insult gays by claiming they might be sexual predators (undoubtedly true, but no one has actually done this). Yet the same person who thinks this hypothetical such a risk he should preemptively deny it has no compunction asserting that straight men are constant sexual predators.
Once again we see the clear double standard.
"Seven Machos said... If discomfort is your best argument, you've lost."
Unless you're a woman. Then you win.
Adultery in the military is only an issue if 1) it becomes an issue, or 2) if the participants are both military... and it becomes an issue.
Ten or 15 years ago the Air Force made the news by discharging a female pilot who was having an affair with an enlisted man. His wife took it to the base commander or some such...
It made the news and the civilian public was *appalled* at the backwards stupidity of stupid medieval military rules and prudery.
Maybe that has changed some, and fraternization between officers and enlisted doesn't require sex going on to be a problem and get someone spoken to, but the idea that adultery gets anyone kicked out except as an excuse because people want him or her gone is just silly.
That said, there is certainly an element of "You're a problem, we want you gone, we'll find an excuse," that should be considered when someone talks about a discharge even under DADT.
str8 guys, often the least appealing, flatter themselves that they are desirable. gay men have seen plenty of junk and likely don't want the nightmare of seeing yours.
statistically gays probably worry more about getting beaten up by str8s.
it's the majority that claims that the minority threatens them, so they punish them, when it is the majority that terrorizes the minority.
DBQ says..."The likelyhood of the military forcing men and women to shower together at the same time is almost nil....so I don't know why you are making a BFD about it."
The point is not that anyone wants coed showers. It's to show irrefutably that the military and society generally accept this argument, except when made by straight men. Why is that?
Cederford, I agree with your wife- Morgan was hot. But the most irritating thing to me (even more irritating than the over the top gay stereotypes by the male contestents) was that Morgan was absolutely saveged by the other contestants, for no other reason, as far as I could tell, then the fact that he was a straight man. The women were worse, IMO.
(yes, there was one other allegedly straight male contestant, but he was nuttier than a fruit basket, and certainly appeared to be a closet case as well.)
- Lyssa
Farewell my friends... Off to dinner!
Nor is this a result of a democratic process.
Congress passed a law. Uncoerced. I believe it has been signed by the president. What are you talking about, dude? Do you know?
Synova claimed, Adultery in the military is only an issue if 1) it becomes an issue, or 2) if the participants are both military... and it becomes an issue.
Not true. I know a man who was selected for major but his promotion was withheld because of an adulterous affair with someone not in the military. He was in my company at the basic school and I met him twenty some years later when we were in the same battalion in Iraq. I was still a major because of 11 years of broken time and he was still a captain. Normally you get forced out if you're not selected for major, but he was selected but not promoted. He tells me that it was this loop hole that allowed him to continue in the reserves.
Nice guy. Then he got shot in the hip with a 7.62mm round.
I wouldn't say this is commonplace, but it is certainly possible and has happened in the recent past.
The family unit precludes sexual attraction.
That's why we don't bother having laws against incest, or trying to prevent it, or vigorously prosecuting it. Yeah, dude, totally. Incest is precluded.
One more thing, Marshal: the reason we want or don't want gays in the military is not because of showering. There are valid concerns on both sides. None of which is showering. None. Got it?
So this is all very shrill and silly.
lyssalovelyreadhead wrote:
there was one other allegedly straight male contestant, but he was nuttier than a fruit basket,
Something tells me that guy wont be appearing on the Top Chef masters. Not unless they take away his coke or his Jolt Cola. Because that guy was hopped up on something fierce.
Its not simply a matter of gays looking at straights in the showers, and straights being offended, its also a matter of gays looking at gays in the showers and being aroused, and having easy access to one another to carryon an affair in the barracks. Again, a total double standard when it comes to men and women, yet which would be easy for gays simply because they are gay.
JR -- Thus the need for the rule that people in the military are not allowed to have sex with any other people in the military.
Problem solved.
Its not simply a matter of gays looking at straights in the showers, and straights being offended, its also a matter of gays looking at gays in the showers and being aroused, and having easy access to one another to carryon an affair in the barracks. Again, a total double standard when it comes to men and women, yet which would be easy for gays simply because they are gay.
From what I've heard, that already happens, even as DADT was enforced. When it did, if they were caught, they get disciplined, kicked out. After the repeal of DADT, I expect it will still happen. When they're caught, they'll get disciplined, kicked out.
I am going to have side with the chorus of aggrieved men. If forcing straight men to shower with open homosexuals is not a problem, then neither is abolishing gender segregation in all communal military showering facilities. The concept is not so radical.
Marshal: You're right that those seem like contradictory statements. I suppose trying to argue multiple points of view is not my wisest move.
That said, I'm not the one insisting that women and men be separated. I couldn't care less if they showered together (Starship Troopers style) but I'm gay so why would it matter to me if there were naked women around? Does it matter if there are naked men around? I don't think so, because I've been there and done that. Experience tells me it can be done. How many straight men have the experience of being casually naked with women? Not many, I suspect.
I think you'll have to ask a woman why there are separate facilities. I honestly don't know.
Remember that the "showering with gays" argument was created by the progressive media as the only "real argument" on the pro-DADT side.
And many people are taking the bait.
Which can be readily dispensed with by gay activists saying "the military will build shower partitions" end of problem. "Now on to mandating gay marriage because gays "are out on the frontline, fighting and dying for our freedom..and mandated teaching to schoolkids that homosexuality is a normal, healthy and moral lifestyle they may wish to experiment with..."
The showering with gays "issue" the progressives are featuring is really a misdirection over more concrete issues.
1. Gays less likely to join than most American demographics.
2. High rate of uncurable, communicable diseases in the gay population making them unfit for military service. Which will shrink gay candidates further. (A gay military age candidate is 16 times more likely to have Herpes III than a straight guy by CDC stats, 44 times the rate of HIV infection).
3. Challenges to good order and discipline.
4. Affecting recruitment rates of non gays once (or if) we ever solve the loss of jobs to China under "Free Trade".
Cedarford brings up a good point. The HIV threat is already scary enough. The inclusion of homosexuals will skyrocket the incidence of HIV in the military.
I can't remember the policy, I think if you're HIV positive then you're non-deployable. I'm not sure, but it may very well be the case.
I can't remember the policy, I think if you're HIV positive then you're non-deployable. I'm not sure, but it may very well be the case.
As it should be. Expect the Sullivanists to fight this next though.
wv "detto" as in ho detto.
"Please explain why we have different showering facilities for women."
Women only make up 20% of our nation's military. Men make up 80%.
91% of rape crimes reported in the U.S. are reported by women. Only 9% are reported by men.
those statistics are why women have separate showering facilities. 4 straight men are more likely to commit sexual violence against 1 woman in an intimate setting than 4 straight men and 1 gay man. Understand now?
Skyler, my point wasn't that the rule doesn't exist, but that enforcement is highly subjective. Not all adultery is created equal, or some such. I met or knew way too many people having "relationships" while married to some one else, blatantly and openly, to think that it's an automatic problem career-wise. The "issue" when it becomes one is more likely to be one of reputation and public relations if the participants aren't both military.
I worked with a guy who had a fling of sorts with a pilot's wife. He felt pretty used over it, and he really did worry about repercussions on his career from a vindictive officer. He didn't worry about anything official, even as mild as an Article 15.
Shower issue? What shower issue?
So the only reason men and women have separate facilities is to prevent rape? Really, that's it?
So the only reason men and women have separate facilities is to prevent rape? Really, that's it?
Yeah, dude, pretty much. Just like the only reason we have laws against incest is to prevent fucked up babies. Certainly, there's nothing inherently problematic about men and women showering together or with mothers and sons having sex.
So if I walk into the ladies locker room at my local YMCA tomorrow at lunchtime and start doing my thing, no one's going to have a problem with that? After all, there's only one of me and lots of them, so rape is not going to be an issue. Perhaps there's some other reason...
And you're wrong about incest, too. That taboo existed long before anyone understood genetics, there's more to it than just "preventing fucked up babies".
so rape is not going to be an issue
You are assuming that people understand the underlying reasons for their hangups.
That taboo existed long before anyone understood genetics, there's more to it than just "preventing fucked up babies"
You've got it completely backwards. Fucked up babies existed long before anyone understood genetics. Thus the taboo. People knew why the babies were fucked up. People were not stupid.
Do you think pulling out before you come was invented only after people understood that sperm and eggs create a zygote? Really?
Come on, dude. You can be better than this. Prudery and disgust and the byzantine rules of society follow from taboos. The rules and the disgust do not create the taboos.
Seperating men's and women's public showers is about safety not discomfort. A woman doesn't want to shower with a bunch of burly men twice her size because she would feel unsafe. On the other hand, I would think it's the gay guy who's risking his safety if he decided to hit on the other guys in the shower. Life (especially in the military) is about being safe, not comfortable.
Wait, what?
Did they knock all of the shower partitions down in the three years since I got out of the Army?
Did they knock down all of the trailers on our bases overseas and replace them with communal prison showers or some shit?
Where are all of these gay guys going to see straight guys shower, exactly?
"Showers" is simply a place holder representing all privacy issues. Individual showers are an easy fix in any situation where there are actually showers available excepting perhaps basic training. Individual housing, not so easy a fix.
And women don't want to shower with *women*. Maybe men are less worried about being naked and no doubt other cultures are different but bathing together has about the same comfort level for women as peeing while someone watches you do it. (Which the military does require if you get chosen for random drug testing, or did when I was in... eyes on you as you pee.) I don't think that not wanting to shower with men has anything to do with feeling physically unsafe because it never gets that far.
Boys might go skinny dipping with other boys, but girls do not go skinning dipping with other girls. They might go with boys on a dare, but not with girls. Not as a rule.
Synova -- First of all, based on your post, it sounds like we can solve a lot of these problems simply by instituting golden showers.
Secondly, I do not believe that women do not strip in groups and skinny dip on a regular basis because (a) I have seen this frequently in the movies, and (b) it happens in my mind.
Seven,
My mother once asked me if I knew what a golden shower was and if I knew would I tell her.
Awkward.
Synova,
I agree with you. I was never comfortable in the communal shower. At high school, college, and at the gym there were individual shower stalls, but not in the barracks.
wv begressi
Kimsch said:
My mother once asked me if I knew what a golden shower was and if I knew would I tell her.
Was she looking at a copy of the Circle Jerks' LP "Golden Shower of Hits"? You could have killed two birds with one stone.
Did you tell her?
Synova commented "(Which the military does require if you get chosen for random drug testing, or did when I was in... eyes on you as you pee.)"
There are stil many place where the commodes have neither doors nor walls. Women are required to use them the same as men.
Unwalled showers are quite commonplace.
chickelit: no
Seven: yes, and she just took in the answer with no other questions. I only knew because I read the term in a book and had to look it up at the library as this was before the intertubes were so widely available. Even before you could get 300 minutes a month free with your AOL subscription...
Unwalled showers are routine everywhere I go. Unwalled toilet stalls are still very common. Last time I was at Fort Stewart, they were still housing troops with unwalled latrine stalls for months at a time, as they were mobilizing to go overseas.
At any rate, you can't put a shower curtain up during a tick check.
Those who want to repeal DADT would love to have us think it's all about showers. It is not.
The showers in my dorm were unwalled. Also, college fraternities all seem to have unwalled toilets. I don't think the military is special in this regard.
Also, as has been pointed out recently in this thread, this showering argument is really, really weak and makes people who object to gays in the military look stupid. It would be far better to focus on legitimate issues, such as the very real problem of people feeling compelled to have sex with their superiors.
No sex between members of the military and other members of the military. All problems solved, and then some.
I'm for that. I'm for it in civilian life as well. Don't ask, don't tell, shut the Hell up about your sex life when you are at work.
DBQ: what does that mean, though? I have never discussed my sex life at work, but I talk about my life, which means any number of references to my partner, since that's what people do. No one in a relationship uses the singular pronoun all the time. So there you go, DADT just won't hold up.
I can't figure out why it is that some straight people equate gay people being uncloseted with people talking about what they do in bed. When you mention a husband or kids, I don't immediately think of you actually fucking some guy and or you on a table with your legs in stirrups, giving birth.
there are some women that dislike the idea of being approached by an aggressive lesbian.
Ending DADT doesn't mean opening up sexually predatory behavior. You really think that because gay people don't have to pretend to not be gay that lesbians are going to be molesting other women on the street or in a shower?
Where do you all get your filthy minds? Is it porn? If so, here's a little secret: those women with two-inch fingernails, tonguing each other like cats lapping at milk aren't actually lesbians.
Next, Beth will try to agree that lesbians don't meet in groups by the lake at and take off all their clothes to skinny dip.
Whatever, dude.
kimsch! Ha!
When I was about 14, my mom got an obscene phone call (wow, just think of how technology in one fell swoop just cut those guys off at the knees) - and asked me what this guy meant exactly and why it would involve our cat.
I just stared at her blankly and said I had no idea, and told her to call my older sister. I had a lot of fun teasing the sister about that later.
Seven Machos,
I spent four and a half years in the Army (mostly on Bragg, although I was at Benning for BCT and Airborne School), and I'm really straining to think of places I lived that had communal latrines without stalls around the showers and toilets.
And I can't. (Although at Benning, they didn't believe in doors or curtains on stalls.)
My AIT and language school barracks buildings (at Bragg) were from the 1950's, and even the communal latrines had stalls around the toilets and showers. (Hell, I lived on a little compound for a few months in Iraq that we kinda appropriated from Saddam's Army, and there were stalls around the toilets and showers there too!)
I don't see why the military should be any different than your high school (or my high school and my grade school), but in my own personal experience, it actually was. The only times I dropped a deuce without a stall it was in a hole I dug, and the only times I showered without a stall I was using baby wipes.
I believe Jason that his experience has been different, but it genuinely surprises me.
Oh yeah, Seven, we do that. Somehow, there's always a college football team playing shirts and skins by the lake. It gets complicated from there.
chickelit, that has the best version of Close to You on it.
Youngblood the old WWII barracks on Tank Hill at Jackson (where Elvis went) had stalls for the toilets, but a shower room with no partitions when I was there.
In Germany it was the same. One big room with several showerheads.
This was late 80's.
wv conate
This skinny dipping digression just wouldn't be complete without some Whitman:
Twenty-eight young men bathe by the shore,
Twenty-eight young men and all so friendly;
Twenty-eight years of womanly life and all so lonesome.
She owns the fine house by the rise of the bank,
She hides handsome and richly drest aft the blinds of the window.
Which of the young men does she like the best?
Ah the homeliest of them is beautiful to her.
Where are you off to, lady? for I see you,
You splash in the water there, yet stay stock still in your room.
Dancing and laughing along the beach came the twenty-ninth bather,
The rest did not see her, but she saw them and loved them.
The beards of the young men glisten'd with wet, it ran from their long hair,
Little streams pass'd all over their bodies.
An unseen hand also pass'd over their bodies,
It descended tremblingly from their temples and ribs.
The young men float on their backs, their white bellies bulge to the
sun, they do not ask who seizes fast to them,
They do not know who puffs and declines with pendant and bending arch,
They do not think whom they souse with spray.
Beth wrote:
"what does that mean, though?"
It means shut up and go away.
That's not my position, it's just what it means.
I mean, did you read the comments in the threads on the DADT repeal over the past two weeks? One guy went so far as to suggest that parade grounds would turn into little Folsom Street fairs. (And no, I'm not exaggerating.)
While, at the same time, others were arguing that homos wouldn't actually join the military because they hate it (and the country, and heterosexuals, and civilization).
My butch cousin (who served in the Army in the 1980's before DADT) and the gay dude in my unit (who I served with from 2004-2007) would disagree, but hey...
Kimsch,
I don't doubt it at all. In grade school in the 1980's, we had gym in the community center across the street, and they had an open shower room (although the stalls had toilets) and in high school it was the same.
It just wasn't that way for me in the Army. Since it was so universal, I'd assumed that stalls were standard (at least in the Army).
Apparently my assumption was wrong!
I showered out of a single garden hose, outside, along with the better part of a company of infantry soldiers, from May 2003 to about September. I don't think I laid eyes on a water heater during that time.
This is part of the divide between Marines and Army infantry and the rest of the services, and why they poll differently. Lots of people in the service have extremely different lifestyles than we did, and can't fathom the day to day activities in the combat arms.
I've also showered for weeks at a time out in the open desert under a sun-warmed shower bag suspended from the main gun of an M1 Abrams tank. And had soldiers drop trou for tick inspection many times at Ft. Benning, where Lyme disease is an ever present threat and we weren't going to see indoors for a week or ten days.
One reason we have separate living areas for men and women in the service is so women have a safe place to retreat to, free of sexual tension. Soldiers flirt all the time. Only idiots think 18-26 year old men and women will be 100 percent "disciplined" about not flirting with each other.
Yes, sexual contact between soldiers overseas is officially forbidden. And they sell condoms at the AAFES PX. What does that tell you?
When the ban is lifted, there's no 'safe place' anymore. That's going to affect women more than men, I think, because lesbians are a higher percentage, relative to the population, than gay men, and because lesbian women are more likely to self-select to military service than gay men. Or, I should say, less likely to self-select OUT of military service.
Under DADT, career-minded lesbian officers and NCOs had a reason to keep a lid on their sexual activities and be extremely discreet about their flirting.
The vast majority will be professional and honorable about it. The problem children will be at the margins. But the marginal cases can cause significant problems. They occasionally do, even now.
WV: perean
Stupid issue really. However, it is odd, Ann, to think that because if you are in a public shower that somehow the level of expectations of who is fantasizing about you must somehow follow a logical conclusion to who you are actually in the shower with. Considering that males shower with males and females with females, then the only conclusion on can come to is that if you are a heterosexual man and you don't know who the homosexual man is, then you are left with only three possible outcomes. The first is, is that the homosexual man you are showering with is fantasizing about having sex with you, the second is, is that he is not, and the third is, is that he is not a homosexual man. In either case, if are in the military, the shower are communal are they not, therefore I would think that one wouldn't have much a of a choice of who they shower with.
Personally, I don't care. I've been at the gym and showered in public or have gone in the steam room without issue. They will get to see the goods, but they will never be able to use them. I like being that kind of tease.
I'm actually wondering when the homosexuals will demand their own divisions.
all of this hilarious tossing around the inconceivable spectre of co-ed showering reminds me of the military shower scene in 'starship troopers'. males and females (of whatever orientation) use the same communal showering facility and, despite some wisecracks, the occasion of cleaning oneself in view of others does not erupt into an orgy. i'm confident that life can imitate art despite the fearful/angry rumblings of some who comment here.
Yes, el polacko.
Because real life is exactly like that stupid movie version of Starship Troopers.
Jason,
Oh, yeah. POGs are lesser creatures, I know. (Just like Legs are lesser creatures than those of us who jump out of perfectly good airplanes, and those in the Special Operations community are better than everyone else, and the Green Beanies are better, etc.)
I went through Benning at the beginning of '03, went back for Airborne school, went to Bragg for AIT (PSYOP), and then went through SOLT with the Green Beanies. Did my fair share of lengthy FTXes. Played OPFOR for the Green Beanies mega-exercise. Been in plenty of situations where I didn't even have the luxury of shower bag (one baby wipe: ears, sack, crack).
As far as dropping trou for tick inspections? I think the first time I did that was for my 7th grade teacher on a two week camping trip. (I grew up in PA -- the Lyme Disease State.)
And that was all just stateside.
I'm not saying I was some kind of crazy secret squirrel running around behind enemy lines, because that would be a lie. (I was mostly a propagandist with a gun.)
I'll bet that you've seen more action than I have.
But having been part of the Special Operations community (and having led an active outdoorsy life before that), I'm not going to pretend that I can't "fathom" being out of doors for a week or ten days in deer tick country, sleeping under the stars without even a poncho, shitting in holes, and generally living in close quarters with other men in shitty conditions.
That shit's not mysterious, and some people even do it for fun. (My first experience with a sun-warmed shower bag came quite a few years before I joined the Army.)
With that being said, what's the big deal? If you drop trou in front of a gay dude looking for ticks, is he going to be so overcome by your glorious manhood that he's going to blow you against your will? If you shower under the barrel of an M1 Abrams, is some gay dude going to lose control and start pounding your ass?
I'm not being facetious here, either.
Whatever there is to "get" about the horror of a gay guy maybe seeing my big swingin' cod while I'm wiping my nasty haven't-showered-in-a-week sack, it's not something that I "get".
And it's not because I'm some pie-in-the-sky knight of tolerance, either -- I'm a blue collar Goldwater Conservative and cultural Catholic.
So what's the problem? Can you answer that without resorting to, "POGs just don't understand"?
The requirement to understand has passed. Now we just have to comply. We'll see what happens. I don't predict any sudden disasters.
Homosexuals in the military is a symptom, not the disease. That we don't perceive the problem is the problem. That there is no shame in homosexuality is the shame of our society.
Seven Machos said...
Nor is this a result of a democratic process.
Congress passed a law. Uncoerced. I believe it has been signed by the president. What are you talking about, dude? Do you know?
__________________________
Dude, do you not know elementary civics? We're a Republic, not a Democracy.
"those statistics are why women have separate showering facilities. 4 straight men are more likely to commit sexual violence against 1 woman than 4 straight men and 1 gay man. get the picture?"
There's a policy requiring group proportionality during shower periods? Are you serious? But under DADT, how did you know who to send as the gay representative?
Seriously, what straws you grasp at and hold out as meaningful.
The policy separating men and women isn't about rape. Nudity among potential partners heightens sexual interest and tension. This is bad for professional relations, a fact we understand so well that virtually every institution in this country has specific rules dealing with sexual interaction among coworkers. Yet somehow this simple fact is denied when it's inconvenient for activists.
"Seperating men's and women's public showers is about safety not discomfort."
Interesting. So we're back to 'gay guys have self control and anyone who denies it is a bigot. Straight guys don't so it's ok we have policies protecting women.
Gender segregation isn't about rape.
You are assuming that people understand the underlying reasons for their hangups.
Indeed. So we're back at the point where it's OK for some people to have "hangups" but not others.
Youngblood,
Try the decaf. ;-)
Now, you did assume that stalls were standard in the military. For the most part, yes, but it's far, far from universal. (Fort Bragg has had more money thrown at it over the years than a number mob sites and remote training facilities where the barracks facilities date back to the 1950s.
Now, how would YOU account for the fact that the combat arms professions poll so vastly differently on this issue than the support troops?
And do you assume we should disregard those differences?
I don't think the "Hey, you shower with gay people at the gym already" argument holds up well, unless they also live, work, eat and sleep with the same people with no option to live anywhere else for months at a time.
This argument also ignores the fact that most people who work out at the gym choose to go home to shower, given a choice. Most people, given the option, opt OUT of showering with those gay people.
"Now, how would YOU account for the fact that the combat arms professions poll so vastly differently on this issue than the support troops?"
The combat arms skew further to the right than other specialties.
It's actually that simple.
Hey late to the debate, but I thought I'd chime in.
I think that the military should offer private showering facilities.. Doesn't seem like it would be difficult or cost-prohibitive.
I DO think people have a natural feeling of discomfort when they feel like they might be the object of someone's sexual desire. I've worked with women in acting, and they were fine undressing around me (as a gay guy) but would feel leered at around straight guys.
The issue is a bit over-blown though. I'm more worried about gay people being harassed in the showers for ASSUMED sexual thoughts, rather than straight men being harassed by gay guys. (Gay people are a small minority... And that would be a situation where idiots would feel justified in "getting revenge".)
I agree with Ann that mature people can get past this issue. On reflection, most people can see that getting worked up that someone might find you sexy is irrational. But if DADT is going to be repealed smoothly, then the natural ick-factor people feel will have to be taken into account.
DBQ: what does that mean, though? I have never discussed my sex life at work, but I talk about my life, which means any number of references to my partner, since that's what people do. No one in a relationship uses the singular pronoun all the time. So there you go, DADT just won't hold up.
I guess you didn't read the rest of my post, or maybe is was in another one....Where I say it is difficult to not be able to talk about your spouse or significant other when everyone else is allowed to do so. I don't see why this should be cause for expulsion from the military.
Everyone needs to be able to have the ability to discuss their loved ones, show and display photos if you want, especially those in a situation where you may not live to see them again.
It isn't fair to make some people pretend that they don't have a life, a family, a spouse or other loved ones.
What I mean about DADT is just do your job and if the topic comes up about your personal life, gay or hetero...keep it short and not intrusive while on the job. The DADT rules, I assumed were more about sexual activity.
As to the shower issue, why can't people take showers in shifts if they are uncomfortable with the company that they are showering with. Surely they must have the capacity to stagger shower times.
DBQ asked, As to the shower issue, why can't people take showers in shifts if they are uncomfortable with the company that they are showering with. Surely they must have the capacity to stagger shower times.
I suppose in some places they do. But I suppose in some places they aren't shooting at people, either. The military is quite large, goes everywhere on Earth and has hundreds of thousands of unit missions. I suppose we can add "shower time coordinator" on to the list of things to do.
I don't think many people really understand how busy the military can be most of the time . . .
Oh, goody. Let's have separate shower times. So all the gay men can shower together, the training schedule be damned. Great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
JR -- Lesbianism is taboo, but not nearly so taboo as homosexuality. Why?
Florence King once suggested that the reason this: if all the men in the world were gay, we'd have no babies ever. If all the women in the world were gay, we'd plenty of babies, only more rape.
Women and men are different. In serious, immutable ways. All societies account for that.
That is a extremely biased comment.
That taboo existed long before anyone understood genetics, there's more to it than just "preventing fucked up babies"
You've got it completely backwards. Fucked up babies existed long before anyone understood genetics. Thus the taboo. People knew why the babies were fucked up. People were not stupid.
Do you think pulling out before you come was invented only after people understood that sperm and eggs create a zygote? Really?
Come on, dude. You can be better than this. Prudery and disgust and the byzantine rules of society follow from taboos. The rules and the disgust do not create the taboos.
Seven Machos you are wrong, incest laws are not to prevent "fucked up babies" excuse me for having to repeat your comment on a civilized forum, do we prevent people with genetic disorders from conceiving such as those with down syndrome, or Cystic fibrosis, or genetic conditions such as certain such as autoimmune diseases or cancers, no.
Although you are correct, that incest laws in particular regarding cousin marriage were introduced based partially on the notion of genetic disorders , there were other reasons including miscegenation , and science has shown that cousin marriage is no riskier than non-cousin marriage within say 1 percent, if a woman has kids in her late 30s its the same risk. As for gays and the political process, judicial process is not democratic, its not winning through a democratic process, whether I agree with that is different since many courts have intervened such as as brown v. board of education.
Synova -- First of all, based on your post, it sounds like we can solve a lot of these problems simply by instituting golden showers.
Secondly, I do not believe that women do not strip in groups and skinny dip on a regular basis because (a) I have seen this frequently in the movies, and (b) it happens in my mind.
There are lesbians who admit that they are attracted to other woman in the locker room and oogle and freely admit that they are attracted, in certain spas in japan and korea women are naked amongst each other, so lesbian women may be an issue, as for japan it is true that before America came into town, I have not heard of many family rooms, but mixed-gender nudity is common in spas before american came into being, in fact being clothed was viewed as more sexual and sensual than unclothed. More on the issue if you want.
I did not, and will call anyone stupid or hateful over this disagreement. What I implied was that their use of "morals" on this was disingenuous and irrational.
white gold charmsrolex replica watches
"It is peculiarly unimaginative to think you have gone through your whole life without being checked out by some person who would not be a desirable sex partner for you. Have these people never been in public showers in schools or sports centres, or seen a doctor, or gone camping? Do they now want public declarations from all people who harbour homosexual thoughts, and for these people to exclude themselves from such situations?"
REALY?
white gold charmsrolex replica watches
Post a Comment