Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal coming soon?

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal coming soon? (Page 9)
Thread Tools
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2010, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
No, but stupendousman is so ****ing terrified of gay people that he's worried that a gay man seeing his penis will immediately turn him gay.

I should probably leave this thread before I get myself temp-banned for pointing out what a perverted little homophobe stupendousman actually is.
Oh, come on. Let's turn it around: Would you feel comfortable posting nudes here? If not, is it because you're a pervert?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2010, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Oh, come on. Let's turn it around: Would you feel comfortable posting nudes here? If not, is it because you're a pervert?
That would depend of someone's comfort level.

Most girls/women are self conscious about their bodies.

At the beach some girls would wear pants, some shorts, some bikinis, some G-string, some topless, and some even nude.

But I really don't see how that would depend on the possibility of some gay person staring at you.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Jan 20, 2010 at 05:08 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2010, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Oh, come on. Let's turn it around: Would you feel comfortable posting nudes here? If not, is it because you're a pervert?
No, it’s because I’d get an infraction for it.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2010, 05:07 PM
 
I quit the army because there were gay guys staring at me while I sleep and shower.

I quit going to the gym because there were gay guys staring at me when I shower and while I work out.

I quit going to the beach because there were gay guys staring at my butt and half naked body.

I quit going to clubs and bars because there were gay guys staring at me and hitting on me.

I quit going to the bookstore and record store because there were gay guys staring at me and hitting on me.

I quit going to the grocery store because there were gay guys staring at me and hitting on me.

and finally...

I stop going outside my house because there are gay guys out there who just like staring at me and fantasizing about me.


No, I don't have a problem with gay guys. It's a FACT that gay guys like to stare at men. Gay guys are creepy. We should lock them up or something. I'm afraid gay guys would rape me if I step outside the house.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2010, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not for their humanity.
What do you mean by "their humanity"?

A soldier's natural human behaviors/desires (like physical attraction towards another person) are VERY heavily regulated in the military. You think any soldier can approach just any other soldier and ask the for a date? Hardly. There are strict rules in the armed services against fraternization among soldiers and the types of romantic relationships soldiers can have with one another. So, your argument is not only false but completely wrong.

Below, I have listed the personnel regulations for fraternization among soldiers for all the armed services. Take a review at the restrictions in the services to see just how many limits are placed on a soldier's natural human desires by their respective service.


ARMY - Army Regulation 600-20 / Army Command Policy

NAVY - OPNAV INSTRUCTION 5370.2C

AIR FORCE - Air Force Instruction 36-2909

MARINES - Marine Corps Manual / Section 1100.4 (page 1-22 in the linked PDF)

COAST GUARD - COMDTINST 1000.6A / Coast Guard Personnel Manual (chapter 8, section H in the linked PDF)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2010, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
You keep saying you do not think homosexuality is a choice but then we have your words that say otherwise.
You have words out of context. My words in that statement encompassed all matter of human sexuality. You seized on one sentence of that statement, set up a strawman around it, and have been trying to knock it down since. I could understand you trying to run it up the flag pole the first time, but to watch you continue to kick this dead horse of a non-point frankly has me embarrassed for you.

You can't say "Some homosexuals choose to be gay" and then follow up with "I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice" without being either ignorant (which I know you are not), a hypocrite (which I hope you are not), or insincere and inconsistent.
My statement;
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Some homosexuals choose to be gay, some gays choose to be straight, then gay, then straight again. Some gays are just gay.
I followed up with;

Originally Posted by ebuddy
The only way we have to identify a homosexual for certain is if they tell us. Many would not tell us, but would tell us the opposite, then get married and as if by magic- they're heterosexual. When did they choose to be gay dc? There are others who would publicly claim they were gay, then straight. When did they choose to be gay? There are bi-sexuals, when did they choose both?
You didn't address any of this of course because for whatever reason it was more important to wag a finger at me for the fact that human sexuality doesn't fit into the neat little box you've fashioned for it.

It's not about the sexuality; It's about the identity. Just like a person's sex or skin color is a fundamental aspect of identity, so is their sexual orientation. As such, I don't think the military should be limiting admission to its ranks on the basis of a fundamental aspect of a person's identity.
There are a great many homosexuals who in fact, do not want that to be any part of their identity. The human mind is a many splendored thing.

Why would you claim that one's skin color is a fundamental aspect of their identity without mention of what that skin color represents not only in culture and heritage, but in recent US history? I just think it's silly to put your ability to openly express your sexuality on par with race and gender. I think it marginalizes their history and progress to be honest.

What gives you the idea that I fashion myself "some champion of racial progress"?
And what do the feelings of blacks concerning gay rights have anything to do with allowing homosexuals in the military?
I think the point poses a unique conundrum for those who attempt to use the history of racial strife to make an argument for acceptance of homosexuality. It's interesting to watch someone choose between listening to minorities as contributors to the process of decision-making in this country and merely using them to make a point.

Sexual identity is as fundamental to a person as their racial identity. I see no difference between the components of a person's identity as it relates to race, gender, or sexual orientation. (Heck, I said that above in the most explicit manner possible.) And for that reason I will state that "I have every reason to believe at [this] point in US history, a significant portion of military leadership [is] acting out of [fear of the unknown]".
I don't think it's "unknown", but if it is unknown, it may not be knowable and would likely be least known by those not involved in the process.

Blacks and women were granted the ability to fully participate in the military instead of a partial participation that limited their productivity and contribution.
I don't consider the service of the majority of gays in the military as "partial", I consider it exemplary. I don't see how their productivity and contribution are limited. Why does the military with all measure of regulations on sexual expression have to allow for "openly" sexual anything? Is there any particular reason why this should be a goal of the military? Forced integration of expression is immeasurable, unreasonable, nonsensical, and has little to nothing to do with the goals of the military. Still, if military leadership deems the above inconsequential, harmless, or even beneficial that they'd repeal DADT, I'd support them.

Hmm, you think removing DADT would result in "less bureaucracy, less administration, less infrastructure, less expense, and more effective a policy overall for the military"? I do.
I don't.

Well, I will say it again. I view sexual orientation as a fundamental component of a person's identity no different than their race or gender. As such, I see no reason for the military to use a fundamental component of a person's identity as a means to restrict their participation in the military.
I disagree with you. I don't think homosexual participation in the military is limited. I think it's exemplary. I don't think most regard their sexuality as this integral a part of their identity. We just disagree, what else can I say?
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Someone also doesn’t have to see you naked to take advantage of you for their sexual gratification.
True, but not physically or based on the private status of my naked body. That's against the law.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Doesn't this make the military's current policy one of forcing homosexual soldiers to violate other soldiers' privacy?
In a way, yes. That's why when it comes down to it, I don't think that DADT is a good idea.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 12:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
What do you mean by "their humanity"?
Their basic state of being human. The acknowledgement of their basic and natural needs, desires, and normal biological and psychological reactions to everything that goes on around them.

They design training so that they can best focus all of that on killing the enemy. They know that if they remove a huge motivating and distracting force - sexual attraction- that they'll be more successful in their attempts. They don't deny what is natural - they focus it in ways that causes fewer distractions.

A soldier's natural human behaviors/desires (like physical attraction towards another person) are VERY heavily regulated in the military. You think any soldier can approach just any other soldier and ask the for a date? Hardly. There are strict rules in the armed services against fraternization among soldiers and the types of romantic relationships soldiers can have with one another. So, your argument is not only false but completely wrong.
I never said that they allowed free expression of the soldier's "humanity." That's precisely why men and women are separated.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 12:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
You keep using the same tired and completely invalid argument over and over.
Your opinion is noted.

Are you okay with someone using your body for personal sexual gratification at the beach?
No more or less than I do at the office. I don't get completely naked at either place.

What about your penis makes it so special compared to the rest of your body?
it's my primary sexual organ. Most humans believe that sex should be something done in private, with someone you share sexual attraction with. Because of that, we normally withhold access to our primary sexual organs to only those we wish to be sexually active with. That's why there are laws requiring us to keep the parts of our bodies that we primarily focus on in regards to sex covered with clothing.

What other basic culture/human nature topics would you like tutoring on? Really, I assumed you had at least a passing idea of the basic facts of life...


Why are you so convinced that a man will gain sexual gratification from you while showering?
I know for a fact that there is heightened sexual gratification when nudity is involved. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry in porn.

Do you stare at people while they sleep? Do you ever sleep in public (airplane, park, beach, train, bus, etc)? Why is that okay?
Have you really even been reading this thread? I already discussed this.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You have words out of context. My words in that statement encompassed all matter of human sexuality. You seized on one sentence of that statement, set up a strawman around it, and have been trying to knock it down since. I could understand you trying to run it up the flag pole the first time, but to watch you continue to kick this dead horse of a non-point frankly has me embarrassed for you.

You didn't address any of this of course because for whatever reason it was more important to wag a finger at me for the fact that human sexuality doesn't fit into the neat little box you've fashioned for it.
I didn't address any of the rest of the statement because what you said in the latter part of that post does not contradict with what you said elsewhere. In this thread you made a statement about homosexuals "Some homosexuals choose to be gay" followed later by another statement that said "I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice". If you want me to stop harping on this logical discrepancy of yours all you need to do is retract your latter statement or just stop being logically inconsistent.
(I understand just fine your point about the range of sexual expressions that are possible. But you made two statements that are totally logically inconsistent. And I will not let that go until you rectify the logical inconsistency. What point is there to have a debate if I ignore such a gross error in debating practice?)

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There are a great many homosexuals who in fact, do not want that to be any part of their identity. The human mind is a many splendored thing.
Huh? How can one's sexual identity not be a part of their identity? It's a fundamental aspect of who a person is whether or not they ever act on it. A man attracted to other men is a homosexual even if he spends his entire life celibate. Just like a man attracted to women is heterosexual even if he spends his entire life not having every engaged in sexual actions with a women.

This aspect of identity is always part of a person. The 90-year-old man in a wheelchair with no ability to get an erection is still considered a heterosexual because of his attraction to women. That's why I consider it to be an inherent part of a person's identity; A person don't have to do anything to have a sexual identity.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why would you claim that one's skin color is a fundamental aspect of their identity without mention of what that skin color represents not only in culture and heritage, but in recent US history?
Umm, because what "skin color represents not only in culture and heritage, but in recent US history" is NOT the topic of this thread. If you want to debate the topic of skin color as it is represented in culture and heritage I will gladly participate in that debate. But that potential debate is the subject of another thread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I just think it's silly to put your ability to openly express your sexuality on par with race and gender. I think it marginalizes their history and progress to be honest.
Your statement is unclear. Whose history do you think is being marginalized in this debate?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think the point poses a unique conundrum for those who attempt to use the history of racial strife to make an argument for acceptance of homosexuality. It's interesting to watch someone choose between listening to minorities as contributors to the process of decision-making in this country and merely using them to make a point.
Your statement is unclear. What does "listening to minorities as contributors to the decision-making process" have to do with the matter at hand? Minorities are certainly welcome to offer their opinions in this matter. Heck, we've had a number of minorities post their opinions in this very thread. I think that's great. But this topic is not about whether or not someone is "entitled" to offer their opinions on this matter and never has been. This topic is about homosexuals serving openly in the military. And, as we've seen, everyone does have an opinion on this matter. But, the fact of having an opinion was never in contention.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I disagree with you. I don't think homosexual participation in the military is limited. I think it's exemplary.
Absolutely. it is exemplary. But if a homosexual soldier ever admits to being homosexual then their participation in the military will come to a swift and immediate end. Hence, the limited nature of their service.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We just disagree, what else can I say?
We always have and we always will. But I don't do this to try and convince you, stupendousman or anyone else of my opinions--I don't care a bit if anyone else agrees with me. I like to debate, and I like to debate with you. So, I keep these threads going as long as I can to thrash out every little possible nugget of debatable context I can.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I didn't address any of the rest of the statement because what you said in the latter part of that post does not contradict with what you said elsewhere. In this thread you made a statement about homosexuals "Some homosexuals choose to be gay" followed later by another statement that said "I never once claimed I thought homosexuality was a choice". If you want me to stop harping on this logical discrepancy of yours all you need to do is retract your latter statement or just stop being logically inconsistent.
(I understand just fine your point about the range of sexual expressions that are possible. But you made two statements that are totally logically inconsistent. And I will not let that go until you rectify the logical inconsistency. What point is there to have a debate if I ignore such a gross error in debating practice?)
As long as you continue to chop singular sentences out of the context of their entire statement, you can point out whatever "logical inconsistencies" you think you've found all day long. It's no more useful than looking at clouds and imagining different shapes and figures. You don't need me to do this.

Huh? How can one's sexual identity not be a part of their identity? It's a fundamental aspect of who a person is whether or not they ever act on it. A man attracted to other men is a homosexual even if he spends his entire life celibate. Just like a man attracted to women is heterosexual even if he spends his entire life not having every engaged in sexual actions with a women.
I am heterosexual. There is no accommodation, consideration, or concern for me as such nor is it anything you can identify about me without me telling you. I can tell you one thing about this "identity" and be entirely opposite. I do not wear it on my sleeve. It is not an integral part of my identity. It is evidenced neither in my anatomy nor the pigment of my skin. IMO the military, with all measure of regulation on sexual expression, should not be required to allow for "openly" sexual anything. Forced integration of expression is immeasurable, unreasonable, nonsensical, and has little to nothing to do with the goals of the military.

This aspect of identity is always part of a person. The 90-year-old man in a wheelchair with no ability to get an erection is still considered a heterosexual because of his attraction to women. That's why I consider it to be an inherent part of a person's identity; A person don't have to do anything to have a sexual identity.
To a third party; a person absolutely has to do with their sexual identity as the third party would only know this "identity" by virtue of what the person is willing to tell of it on any given day. I don't think this is anything the military is commissioned to acknowledge.

Umm, because what "skin color represents not only in culture and heritage, but in recent US history" is NOT the topic of this thread. If you want to debate the topic of skin color as it is represented in culture and heritage I will gladly participate in that debate. But that potential debate is the subject of another thread.
It is lame to equate one with the other without regard for the vast differences between them. The fact that race and gender is the subject of another thread is all I've been trying to say all along. I trust I have you dropping this line of reasoning then.

Your statement is unclear. Whose history do you think is being marginalized in this debate?
The history of blacks and women.

Your statement is unclear. What does "listening to minorities as contributors to the decision-making process" have to do with the matter at hand? Minorities are certainly welcome to offer their opinions in this matter. Heck, we've had a number of minorities post their opinions in this very thread. I think that's great. But this topic is not about whether or not someone is "entitled" to offer their opinions on this matter and never has been. This topic is about homosexuals serving openly in the military. And, as we've seen, everyone does have an opinion on this matter. But, the fact of having an opinion was never in contention.
I think it is unreasonable to equate one with the other when they do not enjoy solidarity. The reason is that the logic you're attempting to use for "acceptance" of gays is not relevant to the logic behind racial and gender inequality for a host of reasons already covered in this thread.

Absolutely. it is exemplary. But if a homosexual soldier ever admits to being homosexual then their participation in the military will come to a swift and immediate end. Hence, the limited nature of their service.
How do you know this to be true? It seems to me your admission of homosexuality should follow the same principle as the admission of anything... know your audience.

We always have and we always will. But I don't do this to try and convince you, stupendousman or anyone else of my opinions--I don't care a bit if anyone else agrees with me. I like to debate, and I like to debate with you. So, I keep these threads going as long as I can to thrash out every little possible nugget of debatable context I can.
We may not always disagree. If the military leadership for example, believes the allowance of the open expression of sexuality is important to them in meeting their goals of recruitment, unit cohesion, and morale that they would seek to repeal DADT; there will be some to disagree and we will be in total agreement.
ebuddy
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
True, but not physically or based on the private status of my naked body. That's against the law.
I think this is a very basic premise you’ve got wrong. The privacy is not in your naked body, it’s in the situation and location you’re in. You have, legally, a right to expect privacy in certain places, like your own bedroom for example. In other places, you have no such right—at the beach, for example. For reasons mostly of convention, places like communal showers fall partly into both groups: you have no expectation of full privacy, but of gender-related privacy. (Note: gender-related, not sexual orientation-related)

If you choose to take off your clothes and be naked in a place where you have no legal right to expect privacy, then someone taking advantage (non-physical, I mean) of that by looking at your naked body isn’t breaking the law, either. If you choose to take off your clothes and be naked in a place where you do have this legal right, then someone looking at your naked body is breaking the law and invading your personal space.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick
There's that blasphemy again, Shif.

Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
There are certainly certain kinds of men who spend all their free time ogling women (or men), but those men aren't really the type to join the military.
You know nothing about men, and have never met any military blokes.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 10:15 AM
 
Anyone remember Lynndie England?
She's what happens when you place mixed sexualities into a war zone.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 12:58 PM
 
Go on...
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
I think this is a very basic premise you’ve got wrong. The privacy is not in your naked body, it’s in the situation and location you’re in. You have, legally, a right to expect privacy in certain places, like your own bedroom for example. In other places, you have no such right—at the beach, for example.
Most beaches have the same laws in regards to what body parts must be covered in order to avoid legal problems as anyplace else. You not only have the right to privacy for your naked body, but you also have the right NOT to have to look at the naked bodies of anyone else.

There's pretty much NO public place that isn't segregated by sex (or specifically designed to provide naked exposure like a strip club) that you can show your private areas without legal consequences and the rest of the public expect not to have to see it either.

If you choose to take off your clothes and be naked in a place where you have no legal right to expect privacy, then someone taking advantage (non-physical, I mean) of that by looking at your naked body isn’t breaking the law, either.
The law is set up so that the chances of you seeing someone naked in a place where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, that isn't segregated by sex, is slim to none unless someone decides to break the law.

Again, the rules are put into place not just so people have the right to control who sees them naked (in ways that might encourage sexual arousal), but also so that you don't have to look at others naked who you choose not to see that why. That's precisely why public decency laws are on the book and likely another reason why the military is run the way it is.

Your argument would have merit if most every place in "public" you can undress was not segregated by sex.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 03:05 PM
 
Haha... stupendousman's arguments are getting more and more stupendously ridiculous.

Right to privacy?

I have the right to privacy in that if I go to a nude beach, I should expect no one should look at my naked body?

If I go to Mardi Gras or spring break, I should not look at naked boobs because I'm violating a girl's right to privacy?

Really?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 09:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Haha... stupendousman's arguments are getting more and more stupendously ridiculous.

Right to privacy?

I have the right to privacy in that if I go to a nude beach, I should expect no one should look at my naked body?
You have to ask them first, if they're hetero or homo, and then cover up if they're homo.

If I go to Mardi Gras or spring break, I should not look at naked boobs because I'm violating a girl's right to privacy?

Really?

You have to tell them first whether you're hetero or homo, so they can cover up.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 09:28 PM
 
Don't visit Europe, stupendousman, you'd be horrified by what people do naked there... like the swimming pool, the beach, public showers, the sauna... and for your god's sake, don't visit Turkey, you'll be gay the second you leave the airplane.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Haha... stupendousman's arguments are getting more and more stupendously ridiculous.

Right to privacy?

I have the right to privacy in that if I go to a nude beach, I should expect no one should look at my naked body?

If I go to Mardi Gras or spring break, I should not look at naked boobs because I'm violating a girl's right to privacy?

Really?
No, those arguments are ridiculous. Those people are choosing to expose themselves in public with the understanding that all and sundry can see them nude. It's not remotely comparable to thinking you're in a situation where you won't be ogled and finding out that someone is doing so. If you want a good comparison, it's like if someone installed a camera in shifuimam's bathroom. Do you think she'd be all, "Oh, I'm no perv, so I don't mind dudes checking me out while I shower"? Does that seem like the most likely response anyone would have to being unwillingly made to expose themselves?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
No, those arguments are ridiculous. Those people are choosing to expose themselves in public with the understanding that all and sundry can see them nude. It's not remotely comparable to thinking you're in a situation where you won't be ogled and finding out that someone is doing so. If you want a good comparison, it's like if someone installed a camera in shifuimam's bathroom. Do you think she'd be all, "Oh, I'm no perv, so I don't mind dudes checking me out while I shower"? Does that seem like the most likely response anyone would have to being unwillingly made to expose themselves?
Bad comparison. How is showering in a military training camp/base in any way equivalent or similar to a secret camera recording someone showering?

There is something called "reasonable expectation of privacy".

When you showered in a gym or military base where there are other men showering at the same time, you don't expect to have any privacy from the other men who are showering there at the same time.


If shifuimam showers at the gym, does she expect that no women would check her out? No.


If I shower in a gym, do I expect no one is going to look at my naked body? No.

Am I breaking the law and invading someone privacy if I happen to look at another naked dude while he is showering in the gym? No.

If I take a piss in a public urinal where all the guys share the same urinal during a sporting event, so I expect no guy to look at my penis? No.

Am I breaking the law and invading someone privacy if I happen to look at another dude's penis while he is taken a piss in the same public urinal? No.


If I take a shower at a military training base, do I expect no one is going to look at my naked body? No.

Are there gay guys at the gym shower? I'm pretty sure there are.

Are there gay guys at sporting events who go to the public urinal to take a piss? I'm pretty sure there are.

Are there gay men in the military? Absolutely there are.


Should we start having segregated bathrooms and gym showers for gay men because it's an "invasion of privacy" because gay men might look at your penis while you piss or shower?
( Last edited by hyteckit; Jan 21, 2010 at 10:12 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
No, those arguments are ridiculous. Those people are choosing to expose themselves in public with the understanding that all and sundry can see them nude. It's not remotely comparable to thinking you're in a situation where you won't be ogled and finding out that someone is doing so. If you want a good comparison, it's like if someone installed a camera in shifuimam's bathroom. Do you think she'd be all, "Oh, I'm no perv, so I don't mind dudes checking me out while I shower"? Does that seem like the most likely response anyone would have to being unwillingly made to expose themselves?
We were specifically talking about places where there is no expectation of privacy, i.e., public places, where stup argued that the law banning nakedness was put in place to protect people from seeing other people’s naked bodies. As such, hyteckit’s examples are perfectly valid: they are about public places where those laws are (temporarily) overruled.


Most beaches have the same laws in regards to what body parts must be covered in order to avoid legal problems as anyplace else. You not only have the right to privacy for your naked body, but you also have the right NOT to have to look at the naked bodies of anyone else.
Plenty of people sunbathe naked on the beaches here. Similarly, women frequently sunbathe topless in parks and occasionally you’ll even see women walking topless down the street. I’m not actually sure if that’s banned or not, but if it is, the ban is not enforced. This might not go for where you live, but I’m sure there are many places even in the US where it’s similar.

I’m pretty sure, though, that the rules regarding nakedness in more or less public places are the same whether or not that place is gender-segregated or not.

Again, the rules are put into place not just so people have the right to control who sees them naked (in ways that might encourage sexual arousal), but also so that you don't have to look at others naked who you choose not to see that why.
These are two completely different arguments. The first (the ‘right’ of not being seen naked) is, as has been pointed out, not an inalienable right of your body, but a right ensured or imposed separately by various different situations and locations. Whether or not these different situations cover most, or even virtually all, places where people are likely to be taking off their clothes is really not relevant. It’s the circumstance that ensures the ‘right’, not your body. And there’s no hindrance (legally) for the military to alter or even remove this insurance as regards their staff.

The second one (the ‘right’ not to see anyone else naked) is not a right at all. I can stand in my own living room without clothes on if I want, even if someone walking by on the street outside will then happen to see my naked body. And how would this one even apply to the military? Would it be to protect the gay soldiers from seeing their non-gay male colleagues naked? Or the non-gay soldiers from seeing their gay colleagues naked?

Your argument would have merit if most every place in "public" you can undress was not segregated by sex.
Parks and beaches are places where nearly everyone undresses in public, if nothing else then just to change clothes. They’re not segregated.












Still, I think this is all rather pointless debate. The best indication of what would happen if DADT were disposed of is to look at what’s happened in all the militaries around the world where similar or equivalent rules and legislation have been disposed of. And there, the overwhelming image seems to be that it pretty much had no effect at all. Those who didn’t care under DADT continued not to care; those who did either sucked it up and got used to it (like so many other things in the military you just have to suck up and get used to), or they left the military. This latter group, apparently, was not numerous enough for their departure (or failure to join in the first place) had any significant impact on the military.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 11:51 PM
 
@ all that up there: Seeing folks naked on the beach is completely different than having to shower and live with them. There's the small issue of proximity.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2010, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
The second one (the ‘right’ not to see anyone else naked) is not a right at all. I can stand in my own living room without clothes on if I want, even if someone walking by on the street outside will then happen to see my naked body.
You'd actually be done for indecent exposure if you did that here.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 12:04 AM
 
stupendousman, what's your position on the privacy issues of having a gay TSA agent see you naked in a full body scan?
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 07:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
You'd actually be done for indecent exposure if you did that here.
Not here, unless they could prove that you were doing it with ‘malicious intent’ (e.g., exhibitionistically masturbating up against the window to be seen by passers-by). If you’re just, say, coming out of the shower and haven’t yet put on your clothes (or if your shower happens to be in your living room, which, granted, is rare), you’d be perfectly within your rights here.

@ all that up there: Seeing folks naked on the beach is completely different than having to shower and live with them. There's the small issue of proximity.
There’s a difference in proximity, yes. But how is that relevant? If the argument is that not being seen naked by someone who might find you sexually attractive is a right you have, then proximity isn’t really relevant.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
stupendousman, what's your position on the privacy issues of having a gay TSA agent see you naked in a full body scan?
Well... there won't be any full body scans of that sort because of course they are generally considered too intrusive. Imagine that, an archaic notion like modesty still alive and well in 2010.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Haha... stupendousman's arguments are getting more and more stupendously ridiculous.

Right to privacy?

I have the right to privacy in that if I go to a nude beach, I should expect no one should look at my naked body?
No, because you CHOSE the NUDE beach.

If I go to Mardi Gras or spring break, I should not look at naked boobs because I'm violating a girl's right to privacy?
You can ask. Unless she CHOSEs to show them to you, you can't see them.

Really?
Yes, "really." At least according to the laws we have in the United States.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
There’s a difference in proximity, yes. But how is that relevant? If the argument is that not being seen naked by someone who might find you sexually attractive is a right you have, then proximity isn’t really relevant.
That's a good point. If a person doesn't like being seen by gay men but chooses to go to a nude beach how does that person prevent themselves from being seen by gay men?

Or how about a locker room at the local gym? If you choose to take a shower after your work-out how can you know that other guys are not checking out your goods while in the shower?


I guess the solution is to either ask ahead of time to see if there will be any gay people in a location where you will be nude (beach or locker room) or never be nude except in your own home with all the curtains closed. It seems like an awful lot of work to avoid being seen by a gay person.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No, because you CHOSE the NUDE beach.
Correct me if I’m wrong here (I might well be), but don’t most people also choose to join the military in the US?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Don't visit Europe, stupendousman, you'd be horrified by what people do naked there... like the swimming pool, the beach, public showers, the sauna... and for your god's sake, don't visit Turkey, you'll be gay the second you leave the airplane.
Like most Americans, I've never chosen to go to a nude beach. Nothing wrong with those who choose otherwise, but I'm given the choice. Americans don't do a lot of things Europeans do. Not really a very good analogy.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:19 AM
 
@stupendousman,

Are you ever nude outside the confines of your own home or a hotel room (when not at home)?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
stupendousman, what's your position on the privacy issues of having a gay TSA agent see you naked in a full body scan?
The same position as having a straight woman seeing me naked in a full body scan.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
@stupendousman,

Are you ever nude outside the confines of your own home or a hotel room (when not at home)?
Yes, but only in places that have sex segregated public facilities just like the military has, which aren't normally close quartered with people I may know have a physical attraction to my sex.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jan 22, 2010 at 08:39 AM. )
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The same position as having a straight woman seeing me naked in a full body scan.
And your position on this is what?
Acceptable? Unacceptable?

What if you are traveling through a busy airport with full-body scanners? Will you ask that a woman not view you on the scanner? And if the TSA agents agree to that will you then ask that the man be a straight man and not a gay man?
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Jan 22, 2010 at 08:27 AM. Reason: typo.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
@stupendousman,

Are you ever nude outside the confines of your own home or a hotel room (when not at home)?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Yes, but only in places that have sex segregated public facilities just like the military has, which aren't normally close quartered with people I may know have a sexual attraction to my sex.
OK. But simply having a sex-segregated public facility does not guarantee that a gay man won't see you naked.
Or are you saying that you make sure the sex-segregated public facility does not have any known gays in it, like the military does? So that you can be sure that the sex-segregated venues where you appear naked are also heterosexual only?

What do you do though if, like in the military where not-telling you are gay is OK, you are naked in a sex-segregated public facility and you suspect someone might be checking out your goods? Do you report it to the facility manager to ensure that the gay person (actual or suspected) is kicked out?

What i am getting at is the following.
If you do appear naked outside of your own home or a hotel room--And you just said you do appear naked at "sex segregated public facilities"--how do you ensure that someone of the same sex does not look at you in a sexual way? How do you ensure that, while being naked at sex-segregated public facilities, that you are in the presence of only heterosexual men? Do you ask ahead of time? Do you appear naked at "sex segregated public facilities" with an explicit no-homo policy? Do you know personally every person who sees you naked in the "sex segregated public facility" and know personally they are not gay?
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Jan 22, 2010 at 08:34 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Correct me if I’m wrong here (I might well be), but don’t most people also choose to join the military in the US?
Yes.

The question is whether or not they should have to give up their most basic rights to privacy in regards to their person in order to choose to serve. We went from a standard where this was not required to one where it would be.

It's like there only being one beach available to anyone, and it being a nude beach where you are forced to go nude or are not able to enjoy the ocean. We don't ask anyone to make that choice either.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The question is whether or not they should have to give up their most basic rights to privacy in regards to their person in order to choose to serve. We went from a standard where this was not required to one where it would be.
Accepting your argument of ‘right to privacy’ in this sense, you did indeed go from a standard where giving up this right was not required to one where it was required when DADT was introduced, and gay people were allowed to serve (albeit not openly) in the military. For this right to remain intact, the military would have to find some way of effectively preventing all gay people from joining the military, which is—obviously—not possible to do.

Repealing DADT will have only a minor effect in the likelihood of being seen naked by someone who might find you physically attractive. The only major effect it’s likely to have is that if there are gay people in your unit, you’d be more likely to know about it (which I would consider a positive thing, since it would make it easier for you to simply avoid showering at the same time as they do as much as possible).

The question is whether or not they should have to give up their most basic rights to privacy in regards to their person in order to choose to serve.
(Quoting the same line again to make a different point)

I don’t see how this is any different than whether or not someone has to give up the same right in order to choose to go to the gym and shower there, which you don’t seem to have a problem with. Choosing to do something means willingly giving up certain rights or expectations; that’s how it works. If you choose to shower at the gym, you give up the right/expectation that no one will see you naked. If you choose to become a prawn fisher in the North Sea, you give up the right/expectation of not smelling like fish for a month. If you choose to become a banker, you give up the right/expectation to dress as you wish. Et cetera.

It's like there only being one beach available to anyone, and it being a nude beach where you are forced to go nude or are not able to enjoy the ocean. We don't ask anyone to make that choice either.
That’s a very flawed analogy. You’re paralleling homosexuality to nudity, which doesn’t work, since the whole crux of the matter of being gay vis-à-vis DADT is that it’s not visible. There’s no way of going to the beach and ‘hiding’ that you’re naked.

A better (though still not particularly good) analogy in the same realm would be to say that as it is now, nudists are allowed to go to regular beaches, as long as they’re not naked or tell anyone they’re nudists; repealing DADT would then be the equivalent of allowing nudists to go to regular beaches naked.

But the analogy is still flawed, and the situation is not really something that invites analogies to begin with.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Like most Americans, I've never chosen to go to a nude beach. Nothing wrong with those who choose otherwise, but I'm given the choice. Americans don't do a lot of things Europeans do. Not really a very good analogy.
Strange thing is, I actually don't give a toss about going to nude beaches. In fact, if there's no boobies it's not a proper beach IMO. I'm proper European in this respect.

And I'm still on your side of the DADT argument... ...because civilian life simply can't be compared to the lifestyle required for maintaining an effective military force. It really does boil down to the fact that the type of people who're attracted to a life of seeing the world and killing people aren't exactly lining up to get into gay clubs.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 10:35 AM
 
The best answer to this is still having gay platoons. Just like in WWII (we did it unofficially).
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
And your position on this is what?
Acceptable? Unacceptable?
My position? Undecided. I'm still weighing the pros and cons.

One thing I do know that is that it woudn't make a difference if the person is same-sex gay or opposite sex straight. If they are attracted to males and I have to get naked in front of them, it doesn't really matter what their sex is.

What if you are traveling through a busy airport with full-body scanners? Will you ask that a woman not view you on the scanner? And if the TSA agents agree to that will you then ask that the man be a straight man and not a gay man?
Like I said, I haven't decided. I probably won't have to travel by plane again until this summer. By then, I'm sure some of this will be sorted out and I can decide then.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
The best answer to this is still having gay platoons. Just like in WWII (we did it unofficially).
If they are going to start with social experiments, that's probably where they should start - and do it with volunteers who agree to the parameters in question.

That way, people who might not otherwise choose to serve could do so without violating anyone else's rights, and they can more accurately determine the effect of sexual attraction on the performance of the troops.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
OK. But simply having a sex-segregated public facility does not guarantee that a gay man won't see you naked.
Neither does having a lock on the door of a private bathroom guarantee that a straight man won't find a way to look at a naked woman while she's showering.

In both cases, the odds against it happening aren't that great, and if it does happen the chances of you finding out about it are slim. Even with the lack of a "guarantee", you don't make something legally permissible just because there's a way for someone to covertly violate someone else's rights. That makes little sense.

I'm guessing that most people assume that an honest gay man would not take advantage of covertly looking at another man showering, anymore than one would assume that an honest straight man wouldn't take advantage of a peephole he's found where they can covertly watch a straight woman shower.

Both do happen, I'm sure. I'm also pretty sure though that if the straight man or woman in these examples knew that the scenario was in place for the temptation in question to be acted on, they would take the proper precautions - not showering in front of a man you know is gay, and either having the peephole covered or not showering there.

Or are you saying that you make sure the sex-segregated public facility does not have any known gays in it, like the military does? So that you can be sure that the sex-segregated venues where you appear naked are also heterosexual only?
I'm not going to knowingly disrobe in front of a gay man unless maybe he was my doctor anymore than I'd get naked in front of a strange straight woman. Given the fact that the odds of either happening in a segregated public facility are slim, it's not something I really concern myself with. On the other hand, if I KNEW that a woman was using the shower or that a gay man was in the room, I'd decline to undress at that time. That's something I couldn't do if I were in a co-ed co-sex orientation military taking orders.

What do you do though if, like in the military where not-telling you are gay is OK, you are naked in a sex-segregated public facility and you suspect someone might be checking out your goods? Do you report it to the facility manager to ensure that the gay person (actual or suspected) is kicked out?
If something was done in public that I didn't feel comfortable with, and I did not have enough evidence of wrongdoing to contact the authorities due to a crime being committed, I'd simply stop doing that thing that causes me to be uncomfortable - I wouldn't get undressed in front of that person ever again. If it were a woman or someone I knew was gay, I wouldn't get undressed in the first place. This is quite normal in regards to human modesty and appropriateness.

What i am getting at is the following.
If you do appear naked outside of your own home or a hotel room--And you just said you do appear naked at "sex segregated public facilities"--how do you ensure that someone of the same sex does not look at you in a sexual way?
It depends on whether I KNOW the chances of it happening are greater than normal. The normal odds are quite slim, and I usually don't worry about something with small odds unless there is something to alert me that the chances of that thing happening is greater than normal.

Again, it would be the same as a woman using public shower facilities. Chances are, she doesn't worry about men looking into the showers or starring in peepholes. However, if she finds a peephole, chances are she isn't just going to ignore it and chances are she's probably going to decline showering there unless she can somehow guarantee someone isn't peeping through.

Is this really anything less than common sense? Am I really here on the internet explaining who a normal person ensures a reasonable amount of modesty for themselves and others in matters of personal privacy? Really?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No, because you CHOSE the NUDE beach.
No, it's because I can't afford my own private beachfront to sunbathe in the nude.

I prefer not to have other men check out my junk.

I have to go to a nude beach to sunbathe in the nude because being naked in a non-nude beach will get me arrested.

Since I wanted to sunbathe in the nude, my only option is a public nude beach. However, I don't have the expectation that no men, straight or gay, nor women would not look and stare at my great ass and manly penis.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 03:47 PM
 
SOLUTION:

Put stalls with curtains in the showers, so homophobes like stupendousman can take a shower without other guys, gay or straight, looking and staring at his junk.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Both do happen, I'm sure. I'm also pretty sure though that if the straight man or woman in these examples knew that the scenario was in place for the temptation in question to be acted on, they would take the proper precautions - not showering in front of a man you know is gay, and either having the peephole covered or not showering there.

I'm not going to knowingly disrobe in front of a gay man unless maybe he was my doctor anymore than I'd get naked in front of a strange straight woman. Given the fact that the odds of either happening in a segregated public facility are slim, it's not something I really concern myself with. On the other hand, if I KNEW that a woman was using the shower or that a gay man was in the room, I'd decline to undress at that time.

If it were a woman or someone I knew was gay, I wouldn't get undressed in the first place. This is quite normal in regards to human modesty and appropriateness.
These comments land you firmly in the minority, at least in my personal experience. As I think I said somewhere early on in this thread, of all the boys/guys/men I’ve shared communal showers with in my entire openly gay life (that’s about a decade), I’ve only ever once experienced someone who felt uncomfortable enough showering with a gay guy that he chose to avoid doing so altogether (by waiting till I was gone). Once. I have occasionally heard people talk about the same thing happening to them once or twice, but it has always been an anomaly, never a predominant situation.

So I’d have to say that, in my own statistics, it’s definitely not “quite normal in regards to human modesty and appropriateness”.

(Incidentally, I’ve known more guys—two, to be exact—who were so uncomfortable changing/showering around other people that they avoided it at all times, regardless of the gender or sexuality of the people they were showering with. So, again in my own personal experience, an all-or-nothing attitude towards the issue has been more common than the version you describe)

Is this really anything less than common sense? Am I really here on the internet explaining who a normal person ensures a reasonable amount of modesty for themselves and others in matters of personal privacy? Really?
No, you’re here on the Internet explaining how* you do that. Not the same thing.


(I’m assuming “who” was supposed to read ‘how’, not ‘why’, here)
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
These comments land you firmly in the minority, at least in my personal experience. As I think I said somewhere early on in this thread, of all the boys/guys/men I’ve shared communal showers with in my entire openly gay life (that’s about a decade), I’ve only ever once experienced someone who felt uncomfortable enough showering with a gay guy that he chose to avoid doing so altogether (by waiting till I was gone). Once. I have occasionally heard people talk about the same thing happening to them once or twice, but it has always been an anomaly, never a predominant situation.

So I’d have to say that, in my own statistics, it’s definitely not “quite normal in regards to human modesty and appropriateness”.

(Incidentally, I’ve known more guys—two, to be exact—who were so uncomfortable changing/showering around other people that they avoided it at all times, regardless of the gender or sexuality of the people they were showering with. So, again in my own personal experience, an all-or-nothing attitude towards the issue has been more common than the version you describe)



No, you’re here on the Internet explaining how* you do that. Not the same thing.


(I’m assuming “who” was supposed to read ‘how’, not ‘why’, here)
Well, it's obvious that stupendous is a homophobe. He is more afraid of the possibility of sharing a communal shower with someone who is gay, than the possibility of dying in war.

I understand that some people are not comfortable with their naked bodies and would not shower in a communal shower where there are other naked men. However, I don't see how it's different whether the other guys there are gay or straight, nor do I care.

I rather take a piss in a urinal with dividers than one without. Worst would be bathrooms with one big urinal where all the guys cram in to take a piss like during half-time of a basketball game.

These situations can be uncomfortable no doubt.


However, so is going to the doctor to have a physical exam.

I don't ask whether my male doctor is straight or gay before I allow him to examine my penis and butt-hole.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
It really does boil down to the fact that the type of people who're attracted to a life of seeing the world and killing people aren't exactly lining up to get into gay clubs.
For the most part, you're probably right. But, there will be a least a few in line at the gay clubs who feel it's their patriotic duty to defend their country. And, there might be those who don't want to fight for their country because they feel shunned by it.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2010, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not going to knowingly disrobe in front of a gay man unless maybe he was my doctor anymore than I'd get naked in front of a strange straight woman. Given the fact that the odds of either happening in a segregated public facility are slim, it's not something I really concern myself with. On the other hand, if I KNEW that a woman was using the shower or that a gay man was in the room, I'd decline to undress at that time. That's something I couldn't do if I were in a co-ed co-sex orientation military taking orders.

If something was done in public that I didn't feel comfortable with, and I did not have enough evidence of wrongdoing to contact the authorities due to a crime being committed, I'd simply stop doing that thing that causes me to be uncomfortable - I wouldn't get undressed in front of that person ever again. If it were a woman or someone I knew was gay, I wouldn't get undressed in the first place. This is quite normal in regards to human modesty and appropriateness.

It depends on whether I KNOW the chances of it happening are greater than normal. The normal odds are quite slim, and I usually don't worry about something with small odds unless there is something to alert me that the chances of that thing happening is greater than normal.

Again, it would be the same as a woman using public shower facilities. Chances are, she doesn't worry about men looking into the showers or starring in peepholes. However, if she finds a peephole, chances are she isn't just going to ignore it and chances are she's probably going to decline showering there unless she can somehow guarantee someone isn't peeping through.

Is this really anything less than common sense? Am I really here on the internet explaining who a normal person ensures a reasonable amount of modesty for themselves and others in matters of personal privacy? Really?
Gotcha. Thanks for the detailed explanation. Out of curiosity, just how much time do you spend contemplating the sexual orientation of those around you when out in public? With all this calculated decision-making you have to do regarding when and where you get un-dressed you must spend quite a bit of time wondering about the sexuality of those in your surroundings.

As for your comment about common sense, I think you presume your ideas about common sense to be more common than they actually are. Either that, or you are of a much older generation (say maybe in your 60s) where all forms of nudity are avoided. People of my generation (late 30s), and certainly of the younger generations, are much more comfortable being around others while minimally dressed or fully naked. We see advertisements of people with minimal to no clothing and don't really get titillated by the sighting the way an older person would.

And as for being around others while naked, it is not a big deal. People of my generation just don't have the shame about the human body that folks from the older generations do. Heck, for me personally I have been in a gym locker with men I have known to be both gay and straight and not cared in the slightest. And I have spent time in saunas and steam rooms that were co-ed with both the men and women having minimal coverings. It's just not that big a deal.

For many of my generation a body is a body and we don't collapse into fits of primordial lust at the site of a naked body. For us, nudity is much more context-sensitive than for people of your (I presume) older generation. So that being nude with a group of people, some of whom belong to the category of those you find attractive, is not a reason to think sexually. Whereas being nude with one or two persons that belong to the category of those you find attractive AND that express a mutual physical/sexual attraction is a reason to think sexually. It's that element of an acknowledged sexual attraction that makes those of us in the younger generations able to separate nudity from sexuality. For us, all nudity is not sexual.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,