[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So if complete retards aren't joining the military because they think DADT has a ****ing thing to do with the chances of their fellow soldiers being gay or not, then why is that a bad thing? Why should we want complete retards with sexual insecurity issues joining the military?

Because mostly (with few exceptions) only complete tards join the military in the first place. The military kinda relies on an influx of tards to continue itself.

I mean, you're thinking of taking a job where you might get killed on the whim of some tard in a suit in Washington in order to "protect" some abstract entity which you swore allegiance to when you were a kid. Does that sound like the kind of job you'd voluntarily do if you weren't a tard?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, and my chosen form of participation was to make sure that everyone saw the link to the exact same discussion we had 8 months ago that I think captures whatever you are about to say here, and refutes it. I don't plan to contribute further, as you're obviously just regurgitating your own talking points and not interested in honest discussion. Enjoy your rerun.

Not buying your line that it "refutes it" (because it doesn't) isn't the same as "not interested in honest discussion." Trying to "poison the well" with a link and an unsubstantiated claim in order to diffuse an argument you aren't winning more than clearly shows who really isn't interested in an open and honest debate.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Sure, why not. Again, the military is all about creating soldiers and NOT individuals. By removing any last vestige of personal identity from the individual the military should be better able to achieve the "goal of having a single, disciplined and united force" where soldiers are treated as "names, ranks and serial numbers".

That totally ignores basic human nature. You will never be able to drum out sexual desire from individuals, which is exactly why the military currently bunks and showers males and females separately. If they could successfully have done that, they' would have done it years ago separate from the debate about gays in the military as it WOULD create a better military.

Your "solution" isn't a solution at all. It creates more problems than it solves, in order to cater to a tiny minority of potential soldiers.

And for the millionth freaking time soldiers DO NOT GET the same "basic human rights" as civilians. So, you really need to stop with this line of reasoning as it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. In the military soldiers DO NOT HAVE a right to privacy.

As I've explained, if that where true, then men and women would be showering and bunking together. The fact that they are not sort of refutes your claim. They've either got that right because it's in our culture not to allow others to look at us naked without our consent, or because the innate sexual desires of humans, and the expression of that desire which naturally is aroused by nudity, is incompatible with effective military service. Either way, allowing homosexuals to serve freely either would remove the rights of others, or be incompatible with what has always been determined to be the most efficient and least distracting method of training and quartering regardless of consideration for sexual preference.

You can't argue otherwise without finding an explanation as to why we currently bunk and shower the sexes separately that is irrelevant to rights or effective military service.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As I've explained, if that where true, then men and women would be showering and bunking together. The fact that they are not sort of refutes your claim. They've either got that right because it's in our culture not to allow others to look at us naked without our consent, or because the innate sexual desires of humans, and the expression of that desire which naturally is aroused by nudity

And, they shouldn't have that right. It's only because of political correctness that they do. Women shouldn't expect to be treated differently from men in the military. The only expectation they should have is that they not be sexually harassed when their fellow male soldiers see them naked.

Do you don't think the men in the American military aren't disciplined enough to handle seeing a woman naked without becoming sex crazed?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do you don't think the men in the American military aren't disciplined enough to handle seeing a woman naked without becoming sex crazed?

I actually do don't think this is the case.

-t

[ctt1wbw]

There's a lot of opinions here from people who probably don't even know what color the ocean is. I suggest you people join the Navy to see what's it is really like.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not buying your line that it "refutes it" (because it doesn't) isn't the same as "not interested in honest discussion." Trying to "poison the well" with a link and an unsubstantiated claim in order to diffuse an argument you aren't winning more than clearly shows who really isn't interested in an open and honest debate.

You really need to understand what certain logical fallacies actually mean. I can't be trying to "poison the well" (generally defined as when someone preemptively presents adverse information about a target) because you've already made your argument. There's nothing preemptive here. I just linked to it so everyone can read it (as well as your eventual agreement in the same thread with my logical analysis of it). Toodles for real now.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's entirely the same, and you simply can't refute the logic. In both cases, you have a situation where people are looking at another person naked who they may be sexually attracted in a way that might arouse them, without the consent of the person in question. It doesn't matter if it's a man or woman, gay or straight.

For the last time, it's not the same! Males and females bunk and shower separately, both in the military and in public gyms, schools, etc. You keep making up this supposed situation in order to attempt to justify your fallacious argument. "If" isn't what we're talking about; reality is, and the reality is that men and women don't shower together in the military, in public buildings, in private gymns, etc. Once again, you're exposing either your sexual fantasies, or your sexual fears, as the issue doesn't affect you at all, unless, as seems to obviously be the case, you want it to.

Then men and woman have to shower and bunk together, right? Or....is there a right to privacy that some want to only be excercised for heterosexuals of different genders, but homosexuals be given special rights?

Fail, as per my argument above.

For the argument to work logically, you have to either keep the right to privacy and disallow homosexuals, or do away with it totally. You can't rationally argue that women should have the right not to be looked at by men, but men don't have the right not to be looked at sexually by other men. It simply is a big logically fallacious FAIL.

Unfortunately for you, it's been obvious for quite some time that you haven't got a clue as to what the concept of a logical argument entails. I'll give you a hint; it doesn't involve your fantasies or fears.

HAHAHA.

You don't want women brought into the discussion because the observation that they are given an absolute "right to privacy" pretty much decimates the argument that there is no "right to privacy" in the military. Either people get it or they don't. When gays have been disallowed, everyone in the military got it equally. The only way to allow homosexuals and make everyone equal is to totally do away with any rights to privacy and bunk and shower EVERYONE together. I'll buy the argument when that's what Democrats and the supporters of gays in the military are proposing. I won't agree with it, but I'll buy it logically. Given the fact that this will never happen, there likely will never be a logical and fair basis for allowing gays in the military.

Please stop talking about using logic when you don't understand it.

Edit: A slippery slope argument does not fall into the constructs of a logical one. I'm done arguing this issue with you. You don't get it.

[Doofy]

Cue 8 pages of BS. I'm out.

[OldManMac]

^^Thank you.

[Doofy]

^^ Don't thank me Karl. I reckon you're wrong. I just can't be arsed with arguing about it though. You will believe what you want to believe. I will believe what I want to believe. The US government will do whatever it wants to do.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

^^ Don't thank me Karl. I reckon you're wrong. I just can't be arsed with arguing about it though. You will believe what you want to believe. I will believe what I want to believe. The US government will do whatever it wants to do.

Of course you'll believe what you want, but history will show you to be on the losing side, just as it did when blacks were considered property, and when women couldn't vote because they weren't intelligent enough, and when people believed the world was flat, and when only a few educated people could actually read and write, and on and on. Today's youth, to their credit, are realizing that it doesn't matter what sexual orientation is, as it doesn't affect them, while people who can't handle change think they can continue to live in the past. They're always shown that their fears were unfounded, but they continue to fight, for nothing.

[besson3c]

Does the argument really just boil down to showers? I still don't understand why a better solution isn't simply to change the shower situation? This all, of course, assumes that active military shower in groups.

Why would we want to potentially decrease military enrollment at a time when we are fighting two wars and counting? It doesn't make sense...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do you don't think the men in the American military aren't disciplined enough to handle seeing a woman naked without becoming sex crazed?

I don't think men, denied sex, in close quarters with healthy, naked young women are going to be focused at all on their mission or their training. Same with a gay man in a room full of muscular, naked men. I'm not suggesting that gay men are any different than straight men. That's the problem - they aren't.

I'm a straight man, and I know that I would totally lose focus on what I was doing knowing that I couldn't have sex, but being forced to bump elbows with healthy, athletic naked females on a daily basis. The frustration would be distracting, unnecessary and create an environment where unwanted sexual behavior would likely occur. For no other reason than the fact that it's human nature for us to be driven sexually.

Are you a virgin or not past puberty yet?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You really need to understand what certain logical fallacies actually mean. I can't be trying to "poison the well" (generally defined as when someone preemptively presents adverse information about a target) because you've already made your argument.

The tactic of getting into a semantical argument when you are losing the one based on logic doesn't suit you. Especially since your semantic argument is quite a stretch. Here's the first link I found when I Googled for the "poisoning the well" logical fallacy:

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

Here's what it says are the steps to the fallacy in question:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

You posted a link from somewhere else that you claimed proved me wrong (which was false) then, so the debate should be over since I was clearly wrong in that thread, without actually debating the point.

There's really no requirement that an argument be finished for the potentially "poisonous" information to be hurtful in regards to the argument being made.

I think that once you start arguing semantics, "toodles" ARE in order.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That totally ignores basic human nature. You will never be able to drum out sexual desire from individuals, which is exactly why the military currently bunks and showers males and females separately. If they could successfully have done that, they' would have done it years ago separate from the debate about gays in the military as it WOULD create a better military.

No one is trying to "drum out sexual desire from individuals". Communal bunking and showering in the military simply reinforces the notion that a member of the military is a soldier first and an individual second. Soldiers can still have sexual desires but they must subordinate their sexual desires as an individual to the primary duty as an efficient, excellent soldier. It's not like we are advocating some kind of forced sexual sterilization of soldiers when they join the military. Quite the contrary, we are acknowledging that soldiers can and do have sexual desires but those desires are a reflection of their individual personhood. And their individual personhood is/must be suppressed to achieve "the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force".

(I find it interesting you talk about sexual desire in individuals yet all your other arguments have been about negating individuality in soldiers to help foster "the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force". So, are you for or against doing away with individuality in the military? Because as it stands now what you said above is in direct contrast to everything else you have said on this topic.)

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your "solution" isn't a solution at all. It creates more problems than it solves, in order to cater to a tiny minority of potential soldiers.

Really?!? So doing away with individuality, and "treating people as individuals", in the military is now a bad thing?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As I've explained, if that where true, then men and women would be showering and bunking together. The fact that they are not sort of refutes your claim.

The fact they are not "showering and bunking together" only shows that the military was giving preferential treatment to its female soldiers when they first accepted female soldiers into the military. Don't you think it's time female soldiers stopped getting this preferential treatment during basic training? After all, preferential treatment serves to "treat people as individuals" and treating people as individuals does not help foster "the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force". I think it is time to put an end to the preferential treatment women receive in the military regarding bunking and showering. Don't you? Don't you want to see an end to treating members of the military as individuals instead of as soldiers? I do.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They've either got that right because it's in our culture not to allow others to look at us naked without our consent, or because the innate sexual desires of humans, and the expression of that desire which naturally is aroused by nudity, is incompatible with effective military service.

Except in the military you do NOT have the right to not "allow others to look at us naked without our consent". When you are in a communal shower, you have to let others look at you naked whether or not you consent to it. So, your argument about consent is false. If you join the military you have to take communal showers with other soldiers during basic training whether or not you consent to those other soldiers looking at you naked.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Either way, allowing homosexuals to serve freely either would remove the rights of others, or be incompatible with what has always been determined to be the most efficient and least distracting method of training and quartering regardless of consideration for sexual preference.

You can't argue otherwise without finding an explanation as to why we currently bunk and shower the sexes separately that is irrelevant to rights or effective military service.

We currently "bunk and shower the sexes separately" because the military decided to give preferential treatment to women. So, don't you think we should do away with this preferential treatment for women?

As for effective military service, you have said it yourself that individuality among soldiers is anathema to "the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force". So, why do you want there to be allowed individuality among men and women by allowing them to "bunk and shower separately"?


You are full of contradictions in this thread. You can't be in favor of both doing away with individuality to achieve "the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force" AND be in favor of allowing individuality in deciding who a person bunks or showers with. So what gives? How can you both be opposed to and in favor of individuality in the military?

Personally, I think you were dead on when you said that "when you start giving [soldiers] special rights (like the right to privacy) you are no longer training towards the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force. You've got individuals, and the military strictly forbids treating people as individuals. They are names, ranks and serial numbers, and for a reason." This is an excellent assessment as to why allowing individuality among soldiers in the military is not a good thing. Allowing our soldiers to choose who they bunk with or shower with only serves to give them an individuality they should not have, an individuality that prevents them from becoming the best soldiers possible.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

For the last time, it's not the same! Males and females bunk and shower separately, both in the military and in public gyms, schools, etc.

How is a violation of one's personal privacy to their naked body "not the same" just because it's easier to police in regards to gender?

Just because a man is given the benefit of the doubt that he's not going to look at another man sexually (since only a tiny percentage of the population would), how does that make the violation in question "not the same?"

Is it because it's easier for homosexuals to secretly look at objects of their sexual desire naked without getting caught? You can easily screen for gender, which is why it is done that way. Not so easy to filter out a small percentage of the population who are different, where there is no clear test for filtering.

If a man dresses as a woman, and then goes into a woman's communal shower and watches them lather up, without arousing suspicion, should that be legal and authorized as well? I mean, if the argument is that this happens already with gay people in same-sex private areas and that we shouldn't have a problem, should a woman have a problem with me doing it as well and if not shouldn't it just be made legal?

Seriously, the logic fails on this one, unless you can form an argument which treats all violations of personal privacy in regards to nudity equally. Yours doesn't. You simply want continued inequality in regards to personal privacy. I want EVERYONE to be able to choose to be free from unwanted violations of this sort or no one to have that choice if it is not of any importance.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think men, denied sex, in close quarters with healthy, naked young women are going to be focused at all on their mission or their training. Same with a gay man in a room full of muscular, naked men. I'm not suggesting that gay men are any different than straight men. That's the problem - they aren't.

I'm a straight man, and I know that I would totally lose focus on what I was doing knowing that I couldn't have sex, but being forced to bump elbows with healthy, athletic naked females on a daily basis. The frustration would be distracting, unnecessary and create an environment where unwanted sexual behavior would likely occur. For no other reason than the fact that it's human nature for us to be driven sexually.

Are you a virgin or not past puberty yet?

So are we still just talking about showers here?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think men, denied sex, in close quarters with healthy, naked young women are going to be focused at all on their mission or their training.

That's the WHOLE POINT of basic training, to take young individuals who think about their object of sexual attraction and turn them into soldiers who know that their sexual desires is a part of their individuality, the part of their individuality that gets suppressed when they become part of "a single, disciplined and united [military] force".

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm a straight man, and I know that I would totally lose focus on what I was doing knowing that I couldn't have sex, but being forced to bump elbows with healthy, athletic naked females on a daily basis.

Well, you would pass or fail basic training only if you could not take these individual desires and manage them in line with the military requirements to be a soldier and not an individual. If you could not manage these desires then it would become obvious you were not good soldier material or that perhaps you needed a second round of basic training to get you to fully embrace what it means to be a soldier and NOT an individual.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The frustration would be distracting, unnecessary and create an environment where unwanted sexual behavior would likely occur.

And any unwanted sexual behavior would be a sign that the person is acting like an individual and not like a soldier and would be in need of more training to learn how to manage their individual desires so as to become the best soldier possible.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For no other reason than the fact that it's human nature for us to be driven sexually.

And . . . how many other ways do soldiers every day manage the facets of their individual "human nature" so as to be better soldiers? Think about smoking, drinking, diet, exercise. Those are all facets of individual human nature but those facets of individual human nature are made to conform to what is needed to be the best soldier possible. I don't see how a soldier controlling their sexual desires is any different from a soldier controlling their other desires. Do you? Do you think humans are slaves to their desires with no ability to manage and/or control them?

[dcmacdaddy]

@stupendousman, here is a very simple question for you.

Do you want soldiers in the US military to be allowed individual rights (like privacy)?
or
Do you want them to be denied individual rights to make the person a better soldier?


So far, in this thread you have been saying Yes to both of these questions. You have been saying you are in favor of allowing soldiers individual rights (like privacy) while at the same time saying that "giving [soldiers] special rights (like the right to privacy)" is detrimental because then "you are no longer training towards the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force. You've got individuals, and the military strictly forbids treating people as individuals." So which is it? Are you in favor of individuality and individual for soldiers or not?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

When we finally figure that shizz out we prolly won't need the military either.

true, that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No one is trying to "drum out sexual desire from individuals". Communal bunking and showering in the military simply reinforces the notion that a member of the military is a soldier first and an individual second.

You've outlined very well why the military has communal bunking and showering.

The problem is that the way they do it now also serves a purpose...

Soldiers can still have sexual desires but they must subordinate their sexual desires as an individual to the primary duty as an efficient, excellent soldier.

...and that purpose is to ensure that they do not have added distraction and temptation which would cause them not to be competely focused on being an efficeint, excellent solder. Sexual attraction would most definitely cause problems with the primary objectives of training killers. That's been the policy of the military way before DADT was even a glimmer in anyone's eye, and it has nothing to do with discriminating against people because of their sexual preferences.

(I find it interesting you talk about sexual desire in individuals yet all your other argument have been about negating individuality in soldiers to help foster "the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force". So, are you for or against doing away with individuality in the military? Because as it stands now what you said above is in direct contrast to everything else you have said on this topic.)

I'm for doing away with individuality. Bringing sexual attraction into the mix (what happens when you do away with arrangements separating those who might become attracted) goes against that goal totally. It's hard to be a cohesive unit lacking individuality when human's natural inclination is to join with another human they are sexually attracted to and pair off. All of the complexities involved in direct, close contact sexual attraction are gone and the focus can be on the group when you aren't dealing with those types of distractions whether they are male, female, straight or gay. The military as it is takes care of the problem by removing the temptation. What's being asked is for the temptation to be put back into place just to satisfy a very tiny percentage of the population. That doesn't really make much sense.

The fact they are not "showering and bunking together" only shows that the military was giving preferential treatment to its female soldiers when they first accepted female soldiers into the military.

I disagree. Your claim is based on the assumption that all men want women they do not find sexually attractive to be able to look at their naked bodies. I for one, would rather not have that. That's why laws regarding nudity don't just apply to keeping a woman's private parts covered.

Except in the military you do NOT have the right to not "allow others to look at us naked without our consent". When you are in a communal shower, you have to let others look at you naked whether or not you consent to it. So, your argument about consent is false.

They have the right to not "allow others to look at us naked without our consent" by those who might be sexually attracted to them. That's why the sexes are separated and homosexuals have been excluded. When you do that, there is no longer the concern that people are violating your personal privacy in a sexual way without your consent, unless you want to lie and be dishonest.

You are full of contradictions in this thread. You can't be in favor of both doing away with individuality to achieve "the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force" AND be in favor of allowing individuality in deciding who a person bunks or showers with. So what gives? How can you both be opposed to and in favor of individuality in the military?

Removing distractions such as sexual attraction does not contradict a mission of defeating individualism any more than allowing people to have the right not to be starved or beat in the military would. You don't have to deny people basic rights in order train someone to work in a unit. Otherwise, the military could basically do anything they chose to a soldier without limit.

Personally, I think you were dead on when you said that "when you start giving [soldiers] special rights (like the right to privacy) you are no longer training towards the goal of having a single, disciplined and united force.

No one is currently getting "special rights" as everyone currently has the right to keep their naked body from being looked in a sexual way and the military sets up housing and training in a way to to ensure that this is the case to the best degree they can.

What's being asked is for everyone to give up that right because a small percentage of the population is different in a way that makes such rights impossible if they are included. That sounds like a disability precluding military service, as there are hundreds of others, if you ask me.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I want EVERYONE to be able to choose to be free from unwanted violations of this sort or no one to have that choice if it is not of any importance.

Good. Since you are amenable to allowing "no one to have that choice [of choosing who gets to see them naked]" is it safe to assume you are going to advocate for allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military AND advocate for the elimination of single-sex bunks and showers in the military?

I think removing these barriers of personal choice would go a long way towards helping our soldiers be soldiers first and individuals second. (As you have pointed out, allowing soldiers to be seen as individuals with things like rights to privacy only serves as a detriment to making our soldiers the best they can possibly be.)

[andi*pandi]

zing.

[OAW]

I'm admittedly torn when it comes to this issue. On the one hand these two posts sum up the basic logic and common sense of why openly gay individuals serving in the military presents a problem ....

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The issue is about basic personal privacy. Do you want others who may find you sexually appealing to view your naked body without your direct consent, and does that situation cause unwanted and unnecessary distraction and tension. You can't just ignore invasions of privacy and it not be an issue. Most people anyways.

In "civilian life" we normally handle this by having separate male and female changing rooms and bathrooms. For instance, women generally don't allow men to shower with them in communal bathrooms - even in the military. The reason is the same as why most straight people don't want to shower/change in front of gay people. Basic personal privacy.

Originally Posted by Railroader

If you are forced to shower and bunk with people who find you sexually attractive, but happen to be of the same sex, why should there be any separation of anything?

If DADT is repealed and gays allowed to serve openly:
Heterosexual men find women sexually = segregate
Heterosexual women find men sexually arousing = segregate
Homosexual men find men sexually arousing = don't segregate
Lesbian women find women sexually arousing = don't segregate

Do you see a double standard or a slightly badly thought out pattern here?

Again ... this is simple logic here. For those who are saying that gays are already in the military and sharing showers I must respectfully submit that that is beside the point. You are conveniently overlooking the fact that the other people in the situation don't know that the gay person is in fact .... gay. But once that is known then people could legitimately begin to feel uncomfortable.

Now having said that, I don't think good soldiers should be run out of the military if their homosexuality is discovered. That just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. So like I said ... I'm pretty conflicted about it all. At the end of the day though, I don't think the issue is DADT .... the issue is the ban on gays in the military. I believe the former should remain ... but the latter should be removed. I'm not a military law expert by any means ... so I don't know if this is even possible or not. It just seems to me that if a soldier is not advertising his/her homosexuality or otherwise flaunting it before his/her straight peers ... then s/he should be allowed to serve. If someone happens to see a soldier coming out of a gay bar hugged up with a person of the same sex and word gets out .... so what? That soldier should still be able to serve and the other soldiers should just have to "get over it" when it comes to showers, etc. At the same time, the homosexual soldier should just have to "get over it" if the official policy of the military discourages open displays of homosexuality. I believe this would be a reasonable compromise.

OAW

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm for doing away with individuality. Bringing sexual attraction into the mix (what happens when you do away with arrangements separating those who might become attracted) goes against that goal totally.

So, doing away with individuality in soldiers seems feasible to you EXCEPT when it comes to the matter of sexual attraction, is that it? You think our soldiers can do away with all other aspects of their individuality except for their sexuality? Why is that?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's hard to be a cohesive unit lacking individuality when human's natural inclination is to join with another human they are sexually attracted to and pair off.

It's hard to be a cohesive unit lacking individuality when human's natural inclination is to play instead of work. Yet, the military manages to get soldiers to focus on work instead of play. So, why do you think the military would not be able to get soldier's to focus on work instead of sexual desire? Do you think humans are slaves to their desires with no ability to manage or control them?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All of the complexities involved in direct, close contact sexual attraction are gone and the focus can be on the group when you aren't dealing with those types of distractions whether they are male, female, straight or gay.

Are you implying that the distractions of sexual attraction only occur when soldiers are "involved in direct, close contact [with the object of their] sexual attraction"?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The military as it is takes care of the problem by removing the temptation.

So, again you are arguing that "out of sight = out of mind". So, you think that the military, by "removing the temptation" of having soldiers with mutual sexual attraction "involved in direct, close contact with the object of their] sexual attraction" makes that attraction go away? You think that the attraction only manifests itself when the soldier is in the presence of someone for whom they have a sexual desire.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What's being asked is for the temptation to be put back into place just to satisfy a very tiny percentage of the population.

Umm, what's being asked is that soldiers be soldiers first and foremost and do away with their individuality--as you have said you are in favor of--and focus on their duties as a soldier.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Removing distractions such as sexual attraction does not contradict a mission of defeating individualism any more than allowing people to have the right not to be starved or beat in the military would.

Absolutely correct. But you seem to think that defeating individualism can be done in our soldiers EXCEPT for their sexual desires? Why is that? Why do you have so little faith in our fellow citizens who choose to serve our country?

I for one think it is quite possible for the military to successfully defeat individualism in the soldiers it trains INCLUDING getting soldiers to control and/or manager their sexual desires. I think it is more than possible for the military to produce excellent soldiers who do not get distracted by sexual attraction.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You don't have to deny people basic rights in order train someone to work in a unit.

Of course not. But people training to become soldiers loose most all of their basic rights anyway, including and especially, the right to privacy. So this is a moot point on your part. People who go into the military lose almost all their basic rights automatically; It is not something that is done selectively. It is just done to everyone.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one is currently getting "special rights" as everyone currently has the right to keep their naked body from being looked in a sexual way

Except that is NOT a right you have in the military. (You don't understand that simply because the military has men and women bunking and showering separately they are doing so to provide men and women "the right to keep their naked body from being looked in a sexual way".) That is NOT why there is separate bunking and showering facilities in the military. The reason women have separate bunking and showering arrangements was to give them preferential treatment as they were eased into military life. While it might have served a valid reason decades ago when women first joined the military it certainly doesn't serve a valid reason now and should be done away with.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What's being asked is for everyone to give up that right because a small percentage of the population is different in a way that makes such rights impossible if they are included.

And yet you still talk about rights as if soldiers had any rights in the military. They have very few rights and "the right to keep their naked body from being looked in a sexual way" is NOT a right soldiers have. The military giving preferential treatment to women in how their bunking and showering arrangements are made in no way should be presumed to mean that soldiers in the US military have "the right to keep their naked body from being looked in a sexual way"; That is a false assumption to make.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What's being asked is for everyone to give up that right because a small percentage of the population is different in a way that makes such rights impossible if they are included.

What's being asked for is that everyone who chooses to join the military is treated equally and judged based only on their ability to become an efficient, excellent soldier.
What's being asked for is that everyone who enters the military is treated equally throughout the whole process.
What's being asked for is that men and women, gay and straight, go through the same training to break down their individual identity and replace it with the identity of a soldier.
What's being asked for is that male and female soldiers are NOT treated differently because of their sex/gender. (Women should lose any special privileges they have when it come to bunking and showering arrangements.)
What's being asked for is that ALL new recruits go through the EXACT SAME process as they get turned into soldiers. Such that men and women both bunk and shower together and gay and straight both bunk and shower together.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Good. Since you are amenable to allowing "no one to have that choice [of choosing who gets to see them naked]" is it safe to assume you are going to advocate for allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military AND advocate for the elimination of single-sex bunks and showers in the military?

That's the best choice, really.

[Atheist]

All of these countries allow gays to serve in the military (a total of 30):

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Romania
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay

It's no less than absurd to suggest that it can't be done in the U.S.

If Obama had any balls he'd just sign an executive order and be done with it!!!

[hyteckit]

I often fantasize about lesbian shower scenes.

Wet, steamy, and hot.

[hyteckit]

I heard military men are not allowed to fantasize about other men/women or look at nudie mags.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now having said that, I don't think good soldiers should be run out of the military if their homosexuality is discovered. That just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. So like I said ... I'm pretty conflicted about it all. At the end of the day though, I don't think the issue is DADT .... the issue is the ban on gays in the military. I believe the former should remain ... but the latter should be removed. I'm not a military law expert by any means ... so I don't know if this is even possible or not. It just seems to me that if a soldier is not advertising his/her homosexuality or otherwise flaunting it before his/her straight peers ... then s/he should be allowed to serve. If someone happens to see a soldier coming out of a gay bar hugged up with a person of the same sex and word gets out .... so what? That soldier should still be able to serve and the other soldiers should just have to "get over it" when it comes to showers, etc. At the same time, the homosexual soldier should just have to "get over it" if the official policy of the military discourages open displays of homosexuality. I believe this would be a reasonable compromise.

OAW

It just seems to me that if a soldier is not advertising his/her race or otherwise flaunting it before his/her peers ... then s/he should be allowed to serve.


You know, this is kinda like the black person "passing" for white. As long as they keep it quiet and don't tell anyone they are really black they are OK to serve in the military. Oops, that would be an excellent analogy except the military said a person's racial identity has nothing to do with their ability to be a good soldier.

How about that? An immutable facet of a person's identity is seen by the military as being irrelevant to that person's ability to be a good soldier. Or do you think we should go back to the days of, you know, not letting "them" --you know, the darkies-- serve in the military if they want to be all "flaunting" it before their peers?

Hmm . . .

[OAW]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It just seems to me that if a soldier is not advertising his/her race or otherwise flaunting it before his/her peers ... then s/he should be allowed to serve.

You know, this is kinda like the black person "passing" for white. As long as they keep it quiet and don't tell anyone they are really black they are OK to serve in the military. Oops, that would be an excellent analogy except the military said a person's racial identity has nothing to do with their ability to be a good soldier.

How about that? An immutable facet of a person's identity is seen by the military as being irrelevant to that person's ability to be a good soldier. Or do you think we should go back to the days of, you know, not letting "them" --you know, the darkies-- serve in the military if they want to be all "flaunting" it before their peers?

Hmm . . .

Normally your arguments are on point but you are definitely slipping with this one. The fact of the matter is that your fundamental premise is severely flawed. The bottom line is that the overwhelming vast majority of black (or other minority) soldiers have no option but to "advertise" their race. Simply because it's written all over their face. IOW, it's an external, physical characteristic. Granted, there's a good chunk of black soldiers of mixed racial heritage but even then most of them are easily identifiable as "black" as that term is used in the US. They may be lighter-skinned but they still better not get have their car breakdown next to a Klan rally. People with significant black heritage whose features are European enough to "pass for white" are rare indeed.

This simply is not the case with homosexuals. You can't simply look at someone's physical appearance and determine that they are homosexual. You can only determine that based upon their behavior.

I'm sorry, but the analogy simply doesn't hold water.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Why can't we go back to the good ole days?

Only straight white men can serve in the military. No blacks, no gays, no women.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Dcmacdaddy

(You don't understand that simply because the military has men and women bunking and showering separately they are doing so to provide men and women "the right to keep their naked body from being looked in a sexual way".) That is NOT why there is separate bunking and showering facilities in the military. The reason women have separate bunking and showering arrangements was to give them preferential treatment as they were eased into military life.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Men and women have segregated sleeping, bathroom, and showering facilities in the military because that's a fundamental aspect of human culture. To do otherwise is essentially "unthinkable". Now that's not to say that the military shouldn't be an exception in the 21st century. That's certainly a valid way to resolve the dilemma that gays serving openly in the military presents. But something tells me that to do this would be culturally untenable even in this day and age. Women would abandon the military in droves if this were the case. And considering how they are critical to the military at this point in time I don't see the military brass coming up with a favorable cost/benefit ratio when they factor in the increase in openly gay soldiers to the ranks. I mean it's a great intellectual exercise, but I don't think it's very realistic. Of the 30 countries that Atheist listed that now allow gays to openly serve in the military ... how many instituted co-ed sleeping, bathroom, and showering facilities as part of that process?

OAW

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

All of these countries allow gays to serve in the military (a total of 30):

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Romania
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay

It's no less than absurd to suggest that it can't be done in the U.S.

If Obama had any balls he'd just sign an executive order and be done with it!!!

So when you joining?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

So when you joining?

At my age (46) I'm too old. I toyed around with the idea when I was coming out of school but my father highly discouraged his children from joining the military.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Men and women have segregated sleeping, bathroom, and showering facilities in the military because that's a fundamental aspect of human culture. To do otherwise is essentially "unthinkable". Now that's not to say that the military shouldn't be an exception in the 21st century. That's certainly a valid way to resolve the dilemma that gays serving openly in the military presents. But something tells me that to do this would be culturally untenable even in this day and age. Women would abandon the military in droves if this were the case.

Could be that would be the result in the US. Over here, most basic training units have long had some ‘jobs’ (I don’t know what else to call them—the unit moves from the military base they’re based in to some other, usually quite rough, place to train for something specific for a week or so) where men and women have communal showers together. Hasn’t sent the women running off “in droves” here.

Generally, it seems to have the effect of creating a more close-knit group of recruits and diminish the gap between men and women that’s otherwise present. I haven’t heard anyone, male or female, say that they didn’t like it or that it made them (continuously) uncomfortable. Sure, it’s uncomfortable the first day or two, but so many things are in the military—that’s kind of the point of the whole stripping off individuality thing. After a few days, they’d all, men and women, gotten used to it and found it to be no big deal, just part of that day’s training.

Most of this is from a girl I know, a very good old friend, who was in the military for nearly two years and had all in all perhaps five or six of these ‘jobs’, so perhaps six to eight weeks of unisex communal showering all in all. Interestingly, when I asked about, say, getting changed in the men’s locker room in a gym, she said she would find that very uncomfortable. It would be a personal thing. In the military, it was part of training, and it was part of what she was expected and forced to endure to become a soldier, and that made it very easy to just accept and get on with it. In her own private time (now that she was out of the military, too), the boundaries to be overstepped were completely different.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Most people don't want the opposite sex or those who might become aroused by them to look at their naked bodies without their consent, and often times don't want to look at others naked unless they happed to find them sexually attractive as well. That's why we have laws in regards to nudity, and non-communal showers separated by gender.

So this means you don’t believe there should be communal showers at all? If you equal having your own naked body looked at by someone who might find it/you sexually appealing with looking at the naked body of someone you don’t yourself find sexually appealing, wouldn’t that mean that everyone had to shower on their own?

That seems a rather far-fetched logic, to me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Could be that would be the result in the US. Over here, most basic training units have long had some ‘jobs’ (I don’t know what else to call them—the unit moves from the military base they’re based in to some other, usually quite rough, place to train for something specific for a week or so) where men and women have communal showers together. Hasn’t sent the women running off “in droves” here.

Copenhagen... as in Denmark? Can you cite something to establish this? As of 1999, men and women didn't shower together in the military.
Tough Girls

[ebuddy]

I think it is a good idea to repeal DADT if the majority of military leadership believes it is a good idea. I think they have the best idea of military culture and I trust their judgement on the most effective environment for recruitment, morale, and unit cohesion. They're not commissioned to resolve complex social issues and this is as it should be.

Otherwise... I think it's a bad idea. If your gender preference is more important to you than serving in the US Armed Forces, you may be more effective among civilians changing their hearts and minds.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Good. Since you are amenable to allowing "no one to have that choice [of choosing who gets to see them naked]" is it safe to assume you are going to advocate for allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military AND advocate for the elimination of single-sex bunks and showers in the military?

I will respect the position. I won't agree with it or advocate it, but I'll respect it as a logical and equal treatment for everyone.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So are we still just talking about showers here?

Not just showers, but the whole close-quartered communal living arrangement. The reason for the focus on showers is that it clearly illustrates something that gets to the heart of the issue to the extreme.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise... I think it's a bad idea. If your gender preference is more important to you than serving in the US Armed Forces, you may be more effective among civilians changing their hearts and minds.

That could be said about both homosexuals and heterosexuals serving in the military.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

@stupendousman, here is a very simple question for you.

Do you want soldiers in the US military to be allowed individual rights (like privacy)?
or
Do you want them to be denied individual rights to make the person a better soldier?

Both.

I want them denied the rights when it's necessary to form a more cohesive unit and does no additional harm. Forcing male/female/gay/straight cohabitation isn't necessary in order to form a "better soldier" and it in fact makes it harder to maintain focus and order.

On top of all the training and skills currently needed in order to become a better killer, you'd have to use valuable resources and add training and preparation to suppress natural human sexual desires. Given that we've already got a solution that doesn't require that, it would seem fruitless to regress and change things for a very tiny minority who can't fit in. In just about every other case where this exists, the military simply refuses admittance to those who can't qualify.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think men, denied sex, in close quarters with healthy, naked young women are going to be focused at all on their mission or their training. Same with a gay man in a room full of muscular, naked men. I'm not suggesting that gay men are any different than straight men. That's the problem - they aren't.

Then I think *that's* a bigger problem than homosexuals in the military. All America's enemies need to do to disable the military is to roll out healthy, young women.

It sounds to me as though you think America's soldiers lack discipline.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

All of these countries allow gays to serve in the military (a total of 30):

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Romania
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay

It's no less than absurd to suggest that it can't be done in the U.S.

If Obama had any balls he'd just sign an executive order and be done with it!!!

I love it when people set out really bad examples of places most of us would never want to live, who have really crappy governments and often times fewer individual rights and ask why we can't be more like them in one way or another.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not just showers, but the whole close-quartered communal living arrangement. The reason for the focus on showers is that it clearly illustrates something that gets to the heart of the issue to the extreme.

Okay, but wouldn't sexual desires and lusting after people of any gender occur whether you slept in the same room as these women or not? What is the difference? If it interferes it would interfere no matter what the living arrangements.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

So this means you don’t believe there should be communal showers at all?

No.

If you equal having your own naked body looked at by someone who might find it/you sexually appealing with looking at the naked body of someone you don’t yourself find sexually appealing, wouldn’t that mean that everyone had to shower on their own?

Not really. There's simply a different set of responses one has when one looks at the person whose gender they are attracted to. I don't want women who I don't find sexually attractive to have to wonder if I'm checking out their bodies. That would make me uncomfortable. I don't like invading someone else's privacy in that way.

[Wiskedjak]

stupendousman, I wonder if you realize how close you are to making standard PC for the poor male straight soldiers and arguing for women to wear burkas to protect the male soldiers from their sexual desires?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

stupendousman, I wonder if you realize how close you are to making standard PC for the poor male straight soldiers and arguing for women to wear burkas to protect the male soldiers from their sexual desires?

Totally... It's not like the shower situation is some crazy, unsurmountable problem.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, but wouldn't sexual desires and lusting after people of any gender occur whether you slept in the same room as these women or not? What is the difference? If it interferes it would interfere no matter what the living arrangements.

How can it "interfere" if you aren't in close quarters with anyone whose gender you happen to be sexually attracted to?

That's the solution the military found (separating people by sexual attraction) and by gosh it's seemed to work all these years. The problem is that some want to change things and make things worse, not better.