[hyteckit]

stupendousman, is this you? Making the same "civil rights to privacy" argument back in 1995?

Lawsuit.no: Suing Jack Murphy Stadium
snopes.com: Stella Awards
frivolous lawsuits – News Stories About frivolous lawsuits - Page 1 | Newser
http://antimisandry.com/discriminati...uit-12772.html

In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something that can only be described as a wee problem: Robert Glaser claimed the stadium's unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried "six or seven" other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he "had to hold it in for four hours" because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women.

Haha... this mythical right to privacy from people lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their consent didn't work out so well for this guy.

The guy lost the lawsuit and has to pay $2000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit.


Jack Murphy Stadium, now Qualcomm Stadium, has 2 unisex bathrooms.

Oh no, a girl might look at my peepee!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Circular logic? Contradictory arguments?

I think you are rationalizing in circles and making contradictory arguments.

Having shower stalls and curtains "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit."

But having separate bathrooms for men, women, and gay men is a good idea? What happen to creating a cohesive fighting unit?

No. I support the current standard.

WTF?

Sh*t, stick with one argument.

I am.

I support military standards which keep people separated based on the potential for sexual attraction.

I also support current standards in regards to general public accomodations which segregate bathroom and bathing facilities by gender, with the assumption that the statistically small number of times homosexuals will be in these facilities with people who do not know they are homosexual - they will do the right thing and go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that the people in question get the same respect for their privacy as a man would in the presence of a woman, or vice versa.

These two standards are not mutually exclusive.

Again, how does having shower stalls and curtains "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit"?

Why don't you explain.

I'm pretty sure I've explained it at length. I'm also pretty sure that like most of my arguments, you've either ignored what I've said or just made up what it is you think my argument is. Really, if I can't convince you that there are laws on the books which protect our rights not to be seen naked by others without our consent, then there's really not much more for us to argue. You're simply without a clue. Sorry.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha...

What's this mythical right to personal privacy from others lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their permission or consent?

It's that "mythical right" which is supported by laws making it illegal for people to try look at you naked without your consent. That one.

There's no such thing. Stop repeating it.

I'll tell that to the cops and the ladies when I stroll into the woman's locker room telling them to "show me your ***s. I'm sure I'll have great success based on your assurance that there is no right for them not to let me see them.

You can't rationalize absurd arguments by making sh*t up to back up your arguments.

Hahahah. Indeed.

If this mythical right to personal privacy from others lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their permission or consent does exist, we would have public bathrooms for:

straight women
straight men
gay men
gay women

No, we wouldn't. It's impractical and too expensive to create separate bathrooms for a very tiny percentage of the population who can not comply with the norms in regards to privacy concerns.

Since it's a statistical small problem, the unwritten "rule" is that those who are homosexual will be reasonable and live by the "honor code" that they'll respect the privacy of others, much the same as we'd expect a man who knew that there was a peephole in the ladies shower room to not invade their privacy and look, and report it to be fixed. Of course, in both cases, there will be people who won't do the right thing. There's little we can do about that.

Females are allowed to use the men's restroom in many places, when the female restroom is full.

Usually with someone trusted helping protect their privacy by acting as a gatekeeper to the general area where they are doing their business. A lady friend at the door letting the men know that there's a woman currently using the bathroom, for instance.. You don't often times really find women just openly entering a man's bathroom and sauntering into a stall all by herself.

Again, like the example with the gay person and the "honor code", the expectation is that in these exceptions to the rules, that the people in that environment will still do their beset to respect the privacy of others, If they don't, then there are still consequences that can occur.

Stop repeating this mythical right to personal privacy from others lusting over your body (naked, half-naked, or otherwise) without their permission or consent, cause there is no such thing.

You just made that sh*t up to back up your argument.

::YAWN::

This type of argument, in addition to your constant trolling, why people don't take you seriously.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman, is this you? Making the same "civil rights to privacy" argument back in 1995?

No, and in your example there was no one having their right to keep their own naked body from being viewed naked taken away. There's a different standard in regulating when a person exposes themselves by choice. The laws and standards usually provide for restrictions on exposure, but no recompense for those who have witnessed the exposure.

How about I post some of the successful lawsuits where people have found out that others had looked at them naked without their knowledge and gotten big bucks? Do you really want to play that game?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Often times I adjust my clothing in ways that might expose areas I'd rather have covered inside a bathroom, but outside a stall. It's also often times the case that bathrooms are used to change clothes in private - again, outside a stall. It's also common to accidentally open a stall door where someone has their private parts exposed, None of this is really a concern since we have segregated bathrooms.

Nothing in there that can’t be solved by simple not adjusting your clothes or changing your clothes in a stall, or locking the door to the stall when you’re using it (a side note: I despise it when people don’t bloody lock the door to the bathroom they’re using. It’s not that complex!). For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone changing their clothes in a non-stall area of a public restroom.

If any of that were really an issue, and the segregation is, as you claim, based in a right not to be seen naked by the opposite sex, then there wouldn’t be unisex public restrooms. And yet, there are. More and more of them, in fact.

Yeah..you pretty much do. If you've got say, 20 guys and you aren't focusing on getting yourself clean and out of the shower, but instead making a head count to observe who is in the shower with you naked and who isn't, you are pretty much engaging in some creepy behavior and that's precisely a reason why people prefer to have their privacy.

You’re right—if there are 20 or 30 or more guys (as would be likely in the military), you’d be likely to miss someone’s absence completely.

I was reflecting on my own personal experience, where there are rarely more than about seven or so guys in total, in which case it does become odd if there’s one guy who always happens to be missing. In fact, there is such a thing: one guy I play badminton with never showers or changes there, he always arrives changed and leaves in his badminton clothes. And yes, others have noticed. They rib him about it, too, with the usual, kindergarten stuff—“Afraid to show his vagina”, “Afraid he’ll get a stiffy”, “Can’t take the minority complexes we’d give him”, etc.

I know how society has formed it's laws and customs.

Really? You know how laws and customs that date back thousands of years were initially shaped? Most impressive.

I know that we as a society have always adhered to customs that have segregated the normal sexual orientations (male heterosexuality and female heterosexuality) in ways that limits unwanted exposure of our bodies to the other side.

As dcmacdaddy is so fond of pointing out, though, the fact that they do limit exposure of our bodies to ‘the other side’ (I’ll leave out the word ‘unwanted’, ’cause they also limit wanted exposure) doesn’t necessarily mean that they do so based on a principle of not being seen naked by someone who might find you physically attractive.

However you turn it, there is no evidence available to prove what the original intentions behind the segregation of these things were. They’re lost in time. We can only now offer our own interpretations (and, in some cases, though not this one, the canonised interpretations in the laws that govern these things) on why they are the way they are today.

All you can point to is that some of the people around you might know you are gay, and might have showered in the same facility as you.

No, that many people around me do know that I’m gay and have showered in the same facility as me.

And apart from such blanket statements as “I know …”, that’s more I’m able to point to than what you seem to be able to point to. Or at least more than you do point to.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, Oisín me old fruit. A question.
Would you intentionally join the army?

No. I’m a conscientious objector. I’ll do my time in civil duty, rather than military duty.

I’d prefer not to join the army unintentionally, either.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, and in your example there was no one having their right to keep their own naked body from being viewed naked taken away. There's a different standard in regulating when a person exposes themselves by choice. The laws and standards usually provide for restrictions on exposure, but no recompense for those who have witnessed the exposure.

How about I post some of the successful lawsuits where people have found out that others had looked at them naked without their knowledge and gotten big bucks? Do you really want to play that game?

Expose themselves by choice? Like taking a piss in the public restroom or taking a shower in a communal shower?

Doesn't everyone take a piss in a public restroom by choice?
Doesn't everyone take a shower in a communal shower by choice?

When I use a public restroom or shower, I never give consent to other guys, gay or straight, to look at my penis or naked body. Or do you mean, by choosing to use a public restroom or shower, I automatically give consent?



What does this mythical right of privacy from others looking at your naked body without your consent protect you from?

1. A guy uses a unisex bathroom. Girl walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
2. A guy uses a unisex bathroom. Gay guy walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
3. A guy uses a unisex bathroom. Gay woman walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
4. A guy uses a unisex bathroom. Straight guy walks in, looks at his peepee without his consent. and laughs.

5. A guy uses the men's restroom. Girl walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
6. A guy uses the men's restroom. Gay guy walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
7. A guy uses the men's restroom. Gay women walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
8. A guy uses the men's restroom. Straight guy walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.


There are unisex bathrooms in a number of places.
There are many places where females are allow to enter a men's restroom.

In many places females are allow to enter a men's restroom such as in college dorms, restaurants, clubs, concert halls, sports stadiums, movie theaters, and so forth.


If I had this mythical right to privacy from others looking at my penis and naked body without my consent, I would demand bathrooms stalls in every public restroom. I hate taking piss in public urinals especially ones with no dividers or one big share urinal where all the guys cramp into to take a piss. All I see are penises in front of me. Talk about not having personal space with you have to relieve yourself.

If I had this mythical right to privacy from others looking at my penis and naked body without my consent, I would demand every military base to install shower stalls and curtains in all communal showers. I strictly forbid straight guys to look at my penis and naked body. Straight guys are too judgmental and critical, why gay guys would be more sensitive to my feelings.



You demand gay guys to be ban from the military because of this "mythical right to privacy".
Can't you use the same "mythical right to privacy" to ban gay guys from sports stadium?

You don't want no gay guys to look at your penis and lust over it without your consent, while you are taking a piss during half-time at a sports stadium.


Go ahead. Trying banning gay guys from sports stadium using your "mythical right to privacy" argument.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Straight guys are too judgmental and critical, why gay guys would be more sensitive to my feelings.

The straight guys would probably call you a sissy for being afraid of others seeing your pee pee.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The straight guys would probably call you a sissy for being afraid of others seeing your pee pee.

See. Straight guys are so judgmental and critical.

[Wiskedjak]

My bet is that people like stupendousman are more afraid that the gay guy will think he's ugly. I don't like people seeing me naked, but it's not because I'm worried they're gonna have wet dreams at the thought of my body. I'm more concerned that they're gonna be grossed out by how not-fit I am.

[OldManMac]

From a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

Withers: Responses to Obama's call to end DADT | Gay News Blog | Blog Post on 365gay.com

The good senator continued by reporting that all the military leaders he talks to inform DADT should not be touched. I doubt McCain has spoken to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili.

“As a nation built on the principle of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger, more cohesive military,” the general noted in a recent press release.” It is time to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline.”

“A single standard of conduct and discipline.” What a novel idea for an institution built on both.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

From a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

Appointed by Clinton.

It was Clinton that wanted to push homosexuals in the military out in the open so why wouldn't he appoint a JC who shared his position on the issue?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

No. I’m a conscientious objector. I’ll do my time in civil duty, rather than military duty.

I’d prefer not to join the army unintentionally, either.

That's what I thought. I suspect that many, many flamboyant guys would also prefer not to join the military. From the flamboyants I know in real life, not a one of them would join (and rightly so, if you ask me).

So what's the point in changing the rules for something which there isn't really a demand for anyway?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's what I thought. I suspect that many, many flamboyant guys would also prefer not to join the military. From the flamboyants I know in real life, not a one of them would join (and rightly so, if you ask me).

So what's the point in changing the rules for something which there isn't really a demand for anyway?

There are plenty of gay people who do want to join the military, flamboyant or not. And in places like Denmark and the UK, where there is no DADT or ban on gays in the military, there are plenty of gay people who join the military, openly.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Nothing in there that can’t be solved by simple not adjusting your clothes or changing your clothes in a stall, or locking the door to the stall when you’re using it (a side note: I despise it when people don’t bloody lock the door to the bathroom they’re using. It’s not that complex!). For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone changing their clothes in a non-stall area of a public restroom.

I have. It's not that big of a deal. Like I said, we've already got a solution accepted and used by the vast majority in regards to public facilities which are used less frequently. The problem is that the same standards really don't apply to facilities used every day by the same people. You wouldn't accept the standards required to use public restrooms in your home, and most probably wouldn't want the same standards if they were engaging in long-term training having to live on an army base.

If any of that were really an issue, and the segregation is, as you claim, based in a right not to be seen naked by the opposite sex, then there wouldn’t be unisex public restrooms. And yet, there are. More and more of them, in fact.

Usually they are:

1. In addition to regular segregated ones, and are optional - usually because the segregated ones will sometimes suffer from congestion and crowding.

2. Often times designed as "family" restrooms, so that for instance fathers feel free to take their small daughters or mothers small sons without fearing they will cause privacy concerns or problems for others. When people to to these unisex bathrooms, they know they will need to excerpt an extra level of caution in how they are exposing themselves.

3. In a place where you wouldn't normally expect public restroom facilities and are "unisex" because of cost/space concerns.

They aren't normally put into place just because people don't mind doing thir business in front of the opposite sex anymore.

Really? You know how laws and customs that date back thousands of years were initially shaped? Most impressive.

You are welcome.

As dcmacdaddy is so fond of pointing out, though, the fact that they do limit exposure of our bodies to ‘the other side’ (I’ll leave out the word ‘unwanted’, ’cause they also limit wanted exposure) doesn’t necessarily mean that they do so based on a principle of not being seen naked by someone who might find you physically attractive.

However you turn it, there is no evidence available to prove what the original intentions behind the segregation of these things were. They’re lost in time. We can only now offer our own interpretations (and, in some cases, though not this one, the canonised interpretations in the laws that govern these things) on why they are the way they are today.

I know that majority don't want to get naked in front of the opposites sex (or sexual orientation) in public without their permission. Again, I'm pretty sure that if I walked into a woman's shower room with 30 women showering, it's highly likely that the majority of the women would protest. If you really disagree, then there's really no reason to further debate. If I can't convince you of this, then you aren't being reasonable in my opinion.

I know that thousands of years ago, there were still prohibitions on nudity.

If you want to search back and find that there are other reasons in addition to these long held traditions and values, you are welcome to do it, but it really doesn't have much of a relevance to the debate at hand.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

There are plenty of gay people who do want to join the military, flamboyant or not. And in places like Denmark and the UK, where there is no DADT or ban on gays in the military, there are plenty of gay people who join the military, openly.

I know a lot of UK military guys. And not a one of them isn't a raving homophobe.
I also know a lot of flamboyants. And not a one of them would join the military.

So where's this data coming from? Certainly not from my personal experience.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Usually they are:

1. In addition to regular segregated ones, and are optional - usually because the segregated ones will sometimes suffer from congestion and crowding.

2. Often times designed as "family" restrooms, so that for instance fathers feel free to take their small daughters or mothers small sons without fearing they will cause privacy concerns or problems for others. When people to to these unisex bathrooms, they know they will need to excerpt an extra level of caution in how they are exposing themselves.

3. In a place where you wouldn't normally expect public restroom facilities and are "unisex" because of cost/space concerns.

Not here they’re not. More and more music venues, sports arenas, and even one airport here have started merging their restroom facilities into unisex ones.

Similarly, most office restrooms (which are also public restrooms) are unisex, and most gyms, etc., have only unisex restrooms in non-changing room areas.

And the ‘family’ restroom thing doesn’t exist here at all. Parents bring their children of the opposite sex into regular men’s/women’s restrooms here all the time, that’s perfectly common.

I know that majority don't want to get naked in front of the opposites sex (or sexual orientation) in public without their permission. Again, I'm pretty sure that if I walked into a woman's shower room with 30 women showering, it's highly likely that the majority of the women would protest. If you really disagree, then there's really no reason to further debate. If I can't convince you of this, then you aren't being reasonable in my opinion.

I don’t disagree. I never said I did, except for the part in parentheses. I don’t believe it likely at all that if a very obviously stereotypically gay guy walked into a men’s shower room with 30 men showering, any majority (or even anyone at all) of the men would protest.

I know that thousands of years ago, there were still prohibitions on nudity.

But they were a lot different from what they are today. Athletes used to perform naked, in front of both men and women (no longer the case). There used to be separated bathing facilities for children and adults (no longer the case). There used to be designated places in the house where women were allowed to be naked (no longer the case). The toilet used to be in the kitchen, unsecluded (no longer the case). Warriors used to charge into battle naked (no longer the case). And so on.

I’m not saying that the bias against nudity didn’t exist thousands of years ago, only that different times have different biases on different things related to nudity, and that many of the biases throughout history were not necessarily compatible with the ‘right’ not to be seen naked. In fact, most of them seem to be unilaterally based on the concept of avoiding inciting sexual desire in heterosexual men, leaving women and gay men out of the equation as active participants entirely.

If you want to search back and find that there are other reasons in addition to these long held traditions and values, you are welcome to do it, but it really doesn't have much of a relevance to the debate at hand.

I disagree, I find it highly relevant, because it shows that your concept of a ‘right’ not to be seen naked is as arbitrary and likely to change as any other bias against nakedness we’ve had throughout history. And it shows that there is no definitive way of claiming or proving that this ‘right’ is the sole—or even a key—factor in determining the exact way our current bias against nakedness works.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I know a lot of UK military guys. And not a one of them isn't a raving homophobe.
I also know a lot of flamboyants. And not a one of them would join the military.

So where's this data coming from? Certainly not from my personal experience.

Well, no. I wouldn’t be likely to cull data from your personal experience, would I? It comes mainly from my own personal experience, logically.

I personally know at least two gay guys who are or have been in the army—one of them has some kind of administrative job in the navy, the other came back from Afghanistan a couple of years ago and has since left the army. If you count friends of acquaintances and such things, I probably ‘know’ four or five more. And if you venture on to those infamous gay dating sites, the occasional soldier or ex-soldier will crop up, too. And then there are the military floats in the gay pride parades.

Similarly, of the straight guys I know who are or have been in the army, by far the majority have served with guys they knew were gay. Not one of them is a raving homophobe, incidentally, and none of them treat their (former) gay milibuddies any differently from how they treat the straight ones. I’m not saying homophobes don’t exist in the military (I’m sure they do), just that none of them happen to be the ones I know.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Well, no. I wouldn’t be likely to cull data from your personal experience, would I? It comes mainly from my own personal experience, logically.

So the data is from different cultures. We've known for a long time that the Anglo world has different attitudes to sexual issues than the Scandy world (i.e. there's not very many people at all in the UK who'd go for a mixed public sauna). You don't think that this has a bearing on things?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So the data is from different cultures. We've known for a long time that the Anglo world has different attitudes to sexual issues than the Scandy world (i.e. there's not very many people at all in the UK who'd go for a mixed public sauna). You don't think that this has a bearing on things?

Probably, yes. Very likely, actually.

Doesn’t mean things aren’t slowly changing (both in the Scando world and in the Anglo world—which isn’t homogeneous, either). On this particular issue, I believe the Anglo world is approaching the current Scandy state of affairs. In other aspects, it’s the other way around, and in yet other aspects, they’re growing apart or just moving along different paths altogether.

I don’t think the fact that the data comes from different cultures invalidates it, though.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I know a lot of UK military guys. And not a one of them isn't a raving homophobe.
I also know a lot of flamboyants. And not a one of them would join the military.

So where's this data coming from? Certainly not from my personal experience.

From *my* personal experience, none of the military guys that I know would have any problem with gays serving openly in the military.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

From *my* personal experience, none of the military guys that I know would have any problem with gays serving openly in the military.

But you're Canadian. How would they know the difference?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But you're Canadian. How would they know the difference?

No matter. I also don't know any guys in the American military who would have a problem with gays serving opening.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I know a lot of UK military guys. And not a one of them isn't a raving homophobe.

Yet they still serve.

What's your label for someone who's so homophobic they don't serve? A double-dog raving homophobe?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Expose themselves by choice? Like taking a piss in the public restroom or taking a shower in a communal shower?

Doesn't everyone take a piss in a public restroom by choice?
Doesn't everyone take a shower in a communal shower by choice?

Yes.

How many women would make the choice to use a communal shower if men where allowed to take them right next to them? I'm making an educated guess that the numbers would be few. The reason why is based on exactly what I've claimed.

When I use a public restroom or shower, I never give consent to other guys, gay or straight, to look at my penis or naked body. Or do you mean, by choosing to use a public restroom or shower, I automatically give consent?

If you use a public shower, and get naked in an area where only other men are allowed to go according to rules, then you by default have consented to allowing your naked body to be seen by them. You can choose not to use that facility and not allow others to see you if you wish.

We as a society have designed these public facilities in a way that creates an environment where the fewest barriers to resistance to use exist that can be implemented in an efficient and cost effective manner.

What does this mythical right of privacy from others looking at your naked body without your consent protect you from?

1. A guy uses a unisex bathroom. Girl walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
2. A guy uses a unisex bathroom. Gay guy walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
3. A guy uses a unisex bathroom. Gay woman walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.
4. A guy uses a unisex bathroom. Straight guy walks in, looks at his peepee without his consent. and laughs. :lol

See above about unisex bathrooms. Given other options, unisex bathrooms are normally the last resort and are available in addition to regular bathrooms.

You have to CHOOSE (that's the basis of consent) to give up normal expectations of privacy in order to use these facilities. A lot of people choose not to use them and instead find other available options. That can't be done in the military.

5. A guy uses the men's restroom. Girl walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.

If she "walks in" on purpose, and doesn't do it by accident, she can find herself in legal trouble. More than a few people have found themselves in the custody of police for being the wrong sex in the wrong bathroom.

6. A guy uses the men's restroom. Gay guy walks in and looks at his peepee without his consent.

Again, there are standards we use in restrooms. The assumption would be that any "look" would be accidental and that the gay guy wouldn't purposely take advantage of the situation and look at any other man's genitalia.

The chances of this happening are slim, and the way we set up our facilities is done in a way to avoid people we don't want to see our private areas not to do so. Just because it might STILL ACCIDENTALLY happen, doesn't mean we've given consent for it to happen NOT by accident.

If I had this mythical right to privacy from others looking at my penis and naked body without my consent, I would demand bathrooms stalls in every public restroom.

The public bathrooms are set up as a convenience with rules, regulations and normally adhered to and accepted conventions in place designed to maximize our ability to limit our exposure. It's not really always economically feasible to do it in a way that limits even ACCIDENTAL invasions of privacy the same way that even though it's our right not to get killed, the government can't design a system that guarantees it won't ever happen.

AND we can always choose not to use these public facilities if we find that they do not provide the level of safety in exposure that we feel is necessary in protecting our rights. I know of lots of people who refuse to use public facilities unless it's a real emergency, for instance. Can't really do that in the military.

I hate taking piss in public urinals especially ones with no dividers or one big share urinal where all the guys cramp into to take a piss. All I see are penises in front of me. Talk about not having personal space with you have to relieve yourself.

Then don't.

Don't use that type of urinal.

Don't go to a "nude beach."

Don't walk down the street naked.

You have the absolute right not to do things you think might cause exposure to your naked body by others who you do not consent to allowing it to be seen.

You demand gay guys to be ban from the military because of this "mythical right to privacy".

As I've demonstrated, it's no myth.

Can't you use the same "mythical right to privacy" to ban gay guys from sports stadium?

No, but I can choose not to expose my penis in a sports stadium if I have a good reason to believe that a gay man or straight woman might might see it. I can't do that in the military. When I'm in basic training, I'm told when and where to do things and I'm not given options. Military rules and regulations up until now really didn't effect the right to privacy in the way I've explained, since it pretty much segregated everyone.

You don't want no gay guys to look at your penis and lust over it without your consent, while you are taking a piss during half-time at a sports stadium.

No, I don't. No straight women either, though they'd have less of an opportunity.

I'd hope that they'd respect the "honor system" we have that is in place and respect my privacy. If I find out that they haven't, or refuse to do so, I can act accordingly up to alerting the authorities that there is someone engaging in indecent actions in a public restroom.

Go ahead. Trying banning gay guys from sports stadium using your "mythical right to privacy" argument.

Absolutely AWESOME strawman you've got there. Beat it to death!

[hyteckit]

stupendousman,

Don't use that type of urinal.

Don't go to a "nude beach."

Don't walk down the street naked.

Don't join the military if you are afraid of gay people looking at your junk when you have to shower.

Don't go to a sport stadium if you are afraid of gay people looking at your junk when you have to pee during the game.

Don't live in a college dormitory while attending college if you are afraid you might get a gay roommate who stares at you at night and watches you when you pee and shower.


You don't start banning groups of people from participating in certain events or public service, just because they make you feel uncomfortable in the shower or restroom. Stop making up this mythical right to privacy from others looking and lusting over your junk without consent. There is no such thing.

There is only reasonable expectation of privacy in the restroom. That doesn't protect you from others, gay or straight, looking at your penis.


But seriously. Just install shower stalls with curtains in the military base.

My college dormitory had it. Females are allow to enter the men's restroom. I ran into a few females in the men's restroom. I even ask one why she was brushing her teeth in the men's restroom. The reason is because the men's restroom was right in front of her room, like 10 steps away. Not a big deal. No one complained.

In many places, females are allowed to enter a men's restroom. Reason being that a women's restroom is often full while the men's restroom is not. Or a mom has to take her little boy to the restroom.


You have not explain to us how having shower stall with curtains "ruin many of the methods and means that the military use in order to create a cohesive fighting unit". If men showering naked with other men is so important, then we must include women in the naked shower training in order to create a more cohesive fighting unit of men and women.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman,

Don't join the military if you are afraid of gay people looking at your junk when you have to shower.

hyteckit,

Don't join the military if you are gay and afraid you might have to give up sex with your preferred partners for a limited amount of time.

...you see, there's likely far fewer of the latter, than there are of the former. I think it's much more reasonable to ask the tiny percentage of the latter to sacrifice instead of the much larger percentage of the former.

Of course, none of this involves the "reasonable" - otherwise we'd still have the same standards we've had for at least the last couple hundred of years and not a lot of debate.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Not here they’re not. More and more music venues, sports arenas, and even one airport here have started merging their restroom facilities into unisex ones.

Could you please cite for me specifically the public places in the United States that ONLY have unisex restroom facilities, that seek to serve a large number of potential citizens?

Similarly, most office restrooms (which are also public restrooms) are unisex, and most gyms, etc., have only unisex restrooms in non-changing room areas.

Which means they only have one small room with one toliet and a lock on the door with the assumption that only one person is likely to be in the room at one time. Sorry. FAIL.

And the ‘family’ restroom thing doesn’t exist here at all.

Where is "here"? If we aren't talking about the U.S. (where "family" restrooms do exist) then you are really debating outside the mark. Lot's of other countries do weird things. People in Africa still wear rings around their necks, which if removed would cause them suffocation, to show status. Right now, we are talking about American standards for American institutions.

[Oisín]

‘Here’ is Denmark, obviously. As I said to Doofy before, I think our cultures are close enough that comparing these kinds of traits cross-culturally is valid, even if the DADT issue currently applies only to the US Army.

Which means they only have one small room with one toliet and a lock on the door with the assumption that only one person is likely to be in the room at one time. Sorry. FAIL.

No, it doesn’t. Unisex restrooms in office environments à la Ally McBeal aren’t that uncommon. I’ve been to restaurants in the States that had unisex restrooms, too (and not just one restroom, but a ‘regular’ public restroom with separate cubicles and common-area sinks). Of course there are locks on the doors (of each cubicle)—that’s to be expected of any public restroom.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

hyteckit,

Don't join the military if you are gay and afraid you might have to give up sex with your preferred partners for a limited amount of time.

You know, I said the same thing to Christians. We should have a DADT policy for Christians. Religion is such a divisive issue in the military.

Don't join the military if you are a Christian and afraid you might have to give up your religion for a limited amount of time.

Don't attend college and live in the dormitory if you are a Christian and afraid you might have to give up your religion for a limited amount of time.


I'm afraid of Christians in the bathroom. They are always judging me in the bathroom. I would shake my penis after peeing, but the think I was masturbating. They would tell me I"m going to hell.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Could you please cite for me specifically the public places in the United States that ONLY have unisex restroom facilities, that seek to serve a large number of potential citizens?

College campuses and dormitories.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

College campuses and dormitories.

College campuses and dormitories have separate bathrooms for men and women.

[hyteckit]

Over 50 colleges in the US have gender-neutral housing.

It's not just unisex bathrooms, but unisex dorm rooms as well.

Men and women share the same rooms, showers, and toilets.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...q=f&aqi=g1&oq=

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Over 50 colleges in the US have gender-neutral housing.

Your link was to your google search. You offered no article. I read the first article and there are 31 colleges that are trying gender-neutral housing arrangements. At the end of the article it recommends contacting the colleges because the housing arrangements may change frequently.

Still... The example you provide is one where a tiny minority of college campuses and dormitories are offering gender-neutral housing on a very experimental basis while the overwhelming majority of them not only have gender-specific bathrooms, but gender-specific floors and in most cases buildings.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your link was to your google search. You offered no article. I read the first article and there are 31 colleges that are trying gender-neutral housing arrangements. At the end of the article it recommends contacting the colleges because the housing arrangements may change frequently.

Still... The example you provide is one where a tiny minority of college campuses and dormitories are offering gender-neutral housing on a very experimental basis while the overwhelming majority of them not only have gender-specific bathrooms, but gender-specific floors and in most cases buildings.

Not sure what you argument is.

My point is that unisex bathrooms exist in many places.

Gender-neutral housing exist in colleges.

Does it matter if there are gender-specific floors in college dormitories and gender based restrooms on college campuses?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Not sure what you argument is.

My argument was that your figures were exaggerated, you didn't link a source to affirm your argument, the examples are experimental, represent a tiny minority, are subject to frequent change, and still offer options for those that want privacy.

Does it matter if there are gender-specific floors in college dormitories and gender based restrooms on college campuses?

IMO yes, it matters. You are arguing against a societal norm using experimental programs that represent a tiny minority of "college campuses and dormitories" and are subject to frequent change. Even with your argument, those 31 college campuses and dormitories do not offer ONLY unisex restroom facilities and we're still not talking about large, communal showers. I live with three females and while our bathroom is of course unisex, we don't generally share it at the same time. My daughters are hyper-conscious of being seen naked by me, their father, let alone a complete stranger. College campuses and dormitories that do not offer options for privacy in their showering facilities will likely struggle with enrollment numbers.

Overall, I didn't think it was a very good response to the call for specific public places in the United States that ONLY have unisex restroom facilities, that seek to serve a large number of potential citizens.

[hyteckit]

Unisex bathrooms are not a social norm in the US. Nor do I want gender specific bathrooms to be eliminated.

But they exist in many places in the US.

And females are allowed to enter a men's restroom in many places.

It's just to counter stupendous's assertion that there is this mythical right of privacy from others looking and lusting over your naked body in restrooms and showers without your consent, and gay men should not be allowed in men's restroom.


Gender-neutral housing on college campuses only have unisex restroom facilities, that seek to serve a large number of potential citizens.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

‘Here’ is Denmark, obviously.

Exactly. Thanks.

No, it doesn’t. Unisex restrooms in office environments à la Ally McBeal aren’t that uncommon.

Yeah, they are. Due to work, I'm in a variety of offices in a lot of different places and I've never once been in one that had a unisex bathroom that wasn't just a single room with a single stall (with a lock on the door). If they were not uncommon, I'm sure I'd find at least one. That's not to say they don't exist. There are lots of people interested in doing what's unusual and trendy, even though it might be irrational. The thing about trends though is that after the novelty wears off, usually they go away.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You know, I said the same thing to Christians. We should have a DADT policy for Christians. Religion is such a divisive issue in the military.

Could be. The problem there though is that there are pretty specific guarantees in the Constitution which would pretty much make this a non-starter.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Unisex bathrooms are not a social norm in the US. Nor do I want gender specific bathrooms to be eliminated.

But they exist in many places in the US.

And females are allowed to enter a men's restroom in many places.

Those are exceptions to the "rule" and you can choose to use these facilities or not with the knowledge that you won't have the same level of privacy you would normally be guaranteed in segregated facilities. You really can't do that in the military.

It's just to counter stupendous's assertion that there is this mythical right of privacy from others looking and lusting over your naked body in restrooms and showers without your consent, and gay men should not be allowed in men's restroom.

I've already decimated your claim. Just because facilities exist for those who CHOOSE to decline their rights to privacy, doesn't mean that right doesn't exist. Otherwise, I'd be able to walk into the ladies locker room and watch them change and there would be nothing for them to do about it, and I wouldn't fear any kind of legal reprisals. That's just not the case.

[besson3c]

So Stupendousman, Mike Mullen is calling for a repeal of DADT:

Mike Mullen Calls For Repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': 'Right Thing To Do'

I don't suppose this changes your mind, huh?

[lpkmckenna]

Defense officials say lift military ban on gays.

Yeah, it's over, the social conservatives lose.

[stupendousman]

So a guy who serves at Obama's pleasure and a guy who has a job you get from having a great deal of political expertise back Obama's already decided upon course of action and says so publicly?

NO WAY!!!!!

[besson3c]

Ahhh... so military commanders are now partisan operatives, but only when they serve under a Democratic administration, right?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So a guy who serves at Obama's pleasure and a guy who has a job you get from having a great deal of political expertise back Obama's already decided upon course of action and says so publicly?

NO WAY!!!!!

Sadly, you'll keep grabbing at straws forever, as you just don't get it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So a guy who serves at Obama's pleasure and a guy who has a job you get from having a great deal of political expertise back Obama's already decided upon course of action and says so publicly?

NO WAY!!!!!

You do realize that if Admiral Mullen disagreed with the President's agenda he could make his disagreement known by stepping down? So, when does the CJCS stop becoming a soldier and start becoming a political operative?


The question you have to ask is whether or not the reason Admiral Mullen is going before Congress and advocating for the repeal of DADT is due to his political allegiance to the President or due to his interests in supporting the military? So, what do you think is the reason Admiral Mullen is appearing before Congress advocating for the repeal of DADT?

Do you think he is doing this to be a good subordinate and to maintain his position within the military hierarchy?
or
Do you think he is doing this because he thinks the best way to serve the needs of the military is by repealing the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh... so military commanders are now partisan operatives, but only when they serve under a Democratic administration, right?

It would seem that this is what stupendousman is suggesting? that military leaders are partisan political operatives even though they have the ability to refuse service to the Joint Chiefs if they so desire.

(In other words, stupendousman thinks that someone in the military who reaches the level of a service chief or a joint chief reaches that level because of their political connections/ability and not because of any inherent skill as a military leader.)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh... so military commanders are now partisan operatives, but only when they serve under a Democratic administration, right?

No.

I'm pretty sure when a President nominates someone for a major post, they sort of make sure that they are reasonably on the same page as them. I'm guessing that Gates and Mullen didn't get to keep their jobs because they were at odds with the President's goals.

That's really not how things work. It's usually more of a surprise when a President's political appointees don't agree with him. That's the case whether it's a Democrat or Republican.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It would seem that this is what stupendousman is suggesting? that military leaders are partisan political operatives even though they have the ability to refuse service to the Joint Chiefs if they so desire.

(In other words, stupendousman thinks that someone in the military who reaches the level of a service chief or a joint chief reaches that level because of their political connections/ability and not because of any inherent skill as a military leader.)

Another clear example of how little stupendousman thinks of the soldiers and leaders of the American military if he thinks that the leaders in the military will place politics over what they think is best for the military and the American people.

stupendousman, what do you have against the American military?

[OldManMac]

Stupendous hasn't been able to move past people looking at his peepee, while the rest of the world is moving on. It's not about who looks at your junk; it's about treating all who wish to serve the same, and fairly, but he'll keep bringing up his mythical "right of privacy" issue long after the issue's been settled (and it will come to pass that gays will serve openly, without disrupting the cohesion and effectiveness of the military, and without everyone wondering if some one else is looking at their privates (pun intended) in a sexual manner).