[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Gotcha. Thanks for the detailed explanation. Out of curiosity, just how much time do you spend contemplating the sexual orientation of those around you when out in public? With all this calculated decision-making you have to do regarding when and where you get un-dressed you must spend quite a bit of time wondering about the sexuality of those in your surroundings.

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

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

For many of my generation a body is a body and we don't collapse into fits of primordial lust at the site of a naked body. For us, nudity is much more context-sensitive than for people of your (I presume) older generation. So that being nude with a group of people, some of whom belong to the category of those you find attractive, is not a reason to think sexually. Whereas being nude with one or two persons that belong to the category of those you find attractive AND that express a mutual physical/sexual attraction is a reason to think sexually. It's that element of an acknowledged sexual attraction that makes those of us in the younger generations able to separate nudity from sexuality. For us, all nudity is not sexual.

And there, in a somewhat large nutshell (poor choice of words; I might get stupendous all upset) is why the repeal of DADT and allowing gays to marry will happen relatively soon. It is primarily older people who make this more of an issue than it needs to be, as the youth of today are smart enough to realize that it doesn't affect them, while older people have been conned into thinking it does affect them (it's the old just because argument). History is full of movements that some accepted and some derided, and mankind has still managed to progress from the cave. I'm 62, and I know that it doesn't matter if my neighbors are gay; we actually had a couple of lesbians living next door to us a few years back (very nice ladies), and we didn't get all in a tizzy, worrying that it was going to cheapen our marriage, or that our children would convert. It's been said many, many, times, and will be said many more; irrational fear is a powerful motivator, especially for the gullible.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

For many of my generation a body is a body and we don't collapse into fits of primordial lust at the site of a naked body. For us, nudity is much more context-sensitive than for people of your (I presume) older generation. So that being nude with a group of people, some of whom belong to the category of those you find attractive, is not a reason to think sexually. Whereas being nude with one or two persons that belong to the category of those you find attractive AND that express a mutual physical/sexual attraction is a reason to think sexually. It's that element of an acknowledged sexual attraction that makes those of us in the younger generations able to separate nudity from sexuality. For us, all nudity is not sexual.

Got back a little while ago from my first game with the hockey league I joined. The league is recreational and co-ed and, as it turns out, the locker rooms are co-ed as well. I can't really say I paid much attention to the women when they were changing and I wasn't watching them to see if they were checking out anyone while the guys were changing. The average age of this crowd is early 30s and I don't think anyone gave a second thought to changing in front of someone of the opposite sex.

[OldManMac]

^^ What's this world coming to?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Got back a little while ago from my first game with the hockey league I joined. The league is recreational and co-ed and, as it turns out, the locker rooms are co-ed as well. I can't really say I paid much attention to the women when they were changing and I wasn't watching them to see if they were checking out anyone while the guys were changing. The average age of this crowd is early 30s and I don't think anyone gave a second thought to changing in front of someone of the opposite sex.

As a regular member of a gym nearby, I can tell you that maybe 2% entirely disrobed... maybe. These gym locker rooms just aren't the example of exhibitionism y'all seem to make them out to be.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As a regular member of a gym nearby, I can tell you that maybe 2% entirely disrobed... maybe. These gym locker rooms just aren't the example of exhibitionism y'all seem to make them out to be.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Do you think this behavior is the result of concern that they might be seen naked by a homosexual?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As a regular member of a gym nearby, I can tell you that maybe 2% entirely disrobed... maybe. These gym locker rooms just aren't the example of exhibitionism y'all seem to make them out to be.

Exhibitionism? Who’s talking about exhibitionism?

Are you saying about 98 per cent of the people who’d just been to the gym and worked out shower without taking all their clothes off? Basically, they shower in their underwear?

That’s nowt to do with exhibitionism, it’s just gross. I’ve never seen anyone do that (except occasionally when kids in public swimming pools shower in their bathing trunks, for some reason—I’ve never seen an adult do it).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

These gym locker rooms just aren't the example of exhibitionism y'all seem to make them out to be.

By that same token, I imagine the typical military dorm isn't quite the place of exhibitionism that *stupendousman* thinks they are.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Got back a little while ago from my first game with the hockey league I joined. The league is recreational and co-ed and, as it turns out, the locker rooms are co-ed as well. I can't really say I paid much attention to the women when they were changing and I wasn't watching them to see if they were checking out anyone while the guys were changing. The average age of this crowd is early 30s and I don't think anyone gave a second thought to changing in front of someone of the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As a regular member of a gym nearby, I can tell you that maybe 2% entirely disrobed... maybe. These gym locker rooms just aren't the example of exhibitionism y'all seem to make them out to be.

I was making a broad-brushed generalization about the attitude of people in the locker room, not what they did in the locker room. And I think it a safe assumption to make that the folks in the locker room stripping down to their underwear, and in a couple cases to nothing, didn't care about what the others were doing. But again, my comment was not about the significance of partial or full nudity (or exhibitionism, in your puritanical mind) but rather the attitude towards the acts of nudity. That attitude is what is significant, not the act of disrobing in front of others.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Exhibitionism? Who’s talking about exhibitionism?

Are you saying about 98 per cent of the people who’d just been to the gym and worked out shower without taking all their clothes off? Basically, they shower in their underwear?

That’s nowt to do with exhibitionism, it’s just gross. I’ve never seen anyone do that (except occasionally when kids in public swimming pools shower in their bathing trunks, for some reason—I’ve never seen an adult do it).

Personally, I hate having to put on clothes that have been already worn after showering, so I wait until I'm home. Lots of people also come in their workout clothes, so they just throw a bag into their locker.

As for the people who do shower, I'll admit, I feel uncomfortable around those dudes who like to put their leg up on the bench and towel off their balls for 20 minutes, but that's more because those people are *********s. FWIW All of the people I've known personally who do this are straight.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by subego 

Personally, I hate having to put on clothes that have been already worn after showering, so I wait until I'm home. Lots of people also come in their workout clothes, so they just throw a bag into their locker.

I can understand that (I usually just bring change, though). My initial thought was that ebuddy’s implication was that people showered in their underwear and then kept wearing it afterwards … which, upon reflection, is not as logical an interpretation as the one that people just wait till they’re home to shower. True.

As for the people who do shower, I'll admit, I feel uncomfortable around those dudes who like to put their leg up on the bench and towel off their balls for 20 minutes, but that's more because those people are *********s. FWIW All of the people I've known personally who do this are straight.

I put my leg up on the bench to towel off my leg, does that count? Beats having to squat down or do straight-legged acrobatics to do it …

I’m pretty sure I’m not a *********, whatever exactly a ********* is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I put my leg up on the bench to towel off my leg, does that count? Beats having to squat down or do straight-legged acrobatics to do it …

I’m pretty sure I’m not a *********, whatever exactly a ********* is.

It depends on your time factor.

I've never thought you were a *********.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

These comments land you firmly in the minority, at least in my personal experience.

That observation and a dollar will get you a cheap cup of coffee. My personal experience and knowledge of American culture, values and norms tells me different. Again, there's a reason why the policies in question are in place. It's not because a tiny minority of senior military officers care more about their "sexual hang-ups" than proper soldier training.

As I think I said somewhere early on in this thread, of all the boys/guys/men I’ve shared communal showers with in my entire openly gay life (that’s about a decade), I’ve only ever once experienced someone who felt uncomfortable enough showering with a gay guy that he chose to avoid doing so altogether (by waiting till I was gone). Once. I have occasionally heard people talk about the same thing happening to them once or twice, but it has always been an anomaly, never a predominant situation.

You really have absolutely no idea how many times it's happened or would have happened unless someone makes it obvious. Besides, are you really taking close quartered showers with men who know you are gay that often to make a credible observation? LIke...every day or at least several times a week?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Well, it's obvious that stupendous is a homophobe. He is more afraid of the possibility of sharing a communal shower with someone who is gay, than the possibility of dying in war.

FUNNY!

I guess the women in the military are "heterophobes" because they are more afraid of the possibility of sharing a communal shower with a strange man, than the possibility of dying in war. Or maybe the other option is that people would like to practice their traditional moral and cultural values if they are going to be asked to die in war?

Naw...it has to be some kind of psychological problem or irrational behavior because otherwise your argument falls apart!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You really have absolutely no idea how many times it's happened or would have happened unless someone makes it obvious. Besides, are you really taking close quartered showers with men who know you are gay that often to make a credible observation? LIke...every day or at least several times a week?

C'mon stupendousman, the whole world is walking around naked with no regard for one another's nakedness except for you. Aside from the fact that gawking at others' nakedness has become a national pastime, you should know all human interaction ceases to be human in a communal shower setting. Male and female restrooms are only an artifact from the ancient times of modesty and a Republican majority in Congress.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That doesn't surprise me at all. Do you think this behavior is the result of concern that they might be seen naked by a homosexual?

I think it's more general. People really don't like to get naked in public. Even less so amongst the opposite sex or opposite sexual orientation.

We all have to get naked sometimes, so we make facility arrangements the best we can to protect our privacy. That's why the showers at the gym (for those who decide to use them) are segregated in a way that's easy to delineate. It's not so easy to do though for the small minority of people who are gay.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Gotcha. Thanks for the detailed explanation. Out of curiosity, just how much time do you spend contemplating the sexual orientation of those around you when out in public? With all this calculated decision-making you have to do regarding when and where you get un-dressed you must spend quite a bit of time wondering about the sexuality of those in your surroundings.

Virtually zero. However, if I know someone's sexual orientation and that person's status would present some sort of invasion of privacy due to the situation, then I would contemplate it. I'm not often in those situations and there's only a very small percentage of people whose sexual orientation is different than mine.

And as for being around others while naked, it is not a big deal.

...to you. I'd suggest that if you commissioned a poll, most people would say that they'd be uncomfortable being naked in front of people of the opposite sex or sexual orientation in a public situation. Otherwise, they'd likely have done away with segregated bathrooms and there would be no segregation in the military. Existing evidence supports observations to the contrary of your opinion.

[OldManMac]

What's really at issue here is a fundamental fear of change. It will happen eventually, and our military won't fall apart (if it does, it will be because of other reasons). There are always those in any society who think they can live the same way they used to think life was, yet we've managed to move out of caves and live amongst the lions and tigers quite nicely.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That observation and a dollar will get you a cheap cup of coffee. My personal experience and knowledge of American culture, values and norms tells me different.

And that, along with a dollar, will buy you the same cup of coffee. (Actually, you can have mine and save your dollar—I don’t drink coffee)

It may well be that there are many people who feel the same way you do (even here), and that your theory of the situation, based on your knowledge of American culture/values/showers, is closer to the truth than mine. It might also very well be that there aren’t, and that my theory of the situation, based on my knowledge of and experience with non-American culture/value/showers as a gay guy, is quite close to the truth even in the US.

Again, there's a reason why the policies in question are in place. It's not because a tiny minority of senior military officers care more about their "sexual hang-ups" than proper soldier training.

No, it’s because that’s just the way things are. It’s a convention that hasn’t been challenged. Since it hasn’t been challenged (on any larger scale, at least), we really have nothing but personal experience to judge by, and neither of us has any measurable way of proving which (if any) of our assumptions would turn out to be correct if it were challenged.

You really have absolutely no idea how many times it's happened or would have happened unless someone makes it obvious.

I was talking about people who followed the pattern you described: avoiding to change/shower in front of people they knew were gay. That’s hard not to make obvious. You can only sit on the bench pretending to check your messages or text someone for so long.

Of course, if someone makes up an excuse and goes and does something else outside the changing rooms for fifteen minutes or something, it’s hard to pinpoint. But I’m generally fairly observant and good at picking up ‘bad vibes’, so to speak, from people who feel uncomfortable around me (I’ll start feeling uncomfortable around them, too), and I never seem to experience that.

Besides, are you really taking close quartered showers with men who know you are gay that often to make a credible observation? LIke...every day or at least several times a week?

Why does it have to be every day or at least several times a week? I shower with other guys who know perfectly well that I’m gay about once a week or so, sometimes more, sometimes less—just like most other guys. But would it make any kind of difference if it were only, say, once a month?

And conversely, do you find yourself in showering/changing situations with people you/others know to be gay present often enough to make a credible observation that others generally, or even just frequently, avoid changing/showering in front of the gay guys?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

What's really at issue here is a fundamental fear of change.

Not fear really. A fundamental desire for there not to be change which infringes on people's rights in order to appease a very small minority.

Change for the sake of change is worthless. Change that makes things worse isn't wise either.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not fear really. A fundamental desire for there not to be change which infringes on people's rights in order to appease a very small minority.

Change for the sake of change is worthless. Change that makes things worse isn't wise either.

Your argument about your "rights" to not be viewed by a naked gay person, versus a naked straight person, have already been adequately destroyed here. You've been grasping at straws for quite a few pages now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

What's really at issue here is a fundamental fear of change.

No. More like a fundamental knowledge that not all change is good.

What's with you lefties and the thinking that just because someone doesn't like something or they think it's a bad idea you think they're scared of it?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your argument about your "rights" to not be viewed by a naked gay person, versus a naked straight person, have already been adequately destroyed here.

It's REALLY easy to "destroy" a strawman.

You can't defeat my argument when you can't even repeat it without butchering it in a way that no longer represents what I've claimed.

My right is in not being looked at naked without my permission by someone whose orientation is such as they might become sexually aroused by my nudity. It could very well be a straight person (female in my case) in question.

This right is supported by the numerous laws and regulations which have always been on the books which separates and regulates nudity. I'm not just making up what makes me personally comfortable, or some utopian view of what I'd like to happen so that traditional moral and cultural norms are devalued. We've actually implemented these standards into our laws.

You've been grasping at straws for quite a few pages now.

When you fight against strawmen, all you see is straw.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

FUNNY!

I guess the women in the military are "heterophobes" because they are more afraid of the possibility of sharing a communal shower with a strange man, than the possibility of dying in war. Or maybe the other option is that people would like to practice their traditional moral and cultural values if they are going to be asked to die in war?

Naw...it has to be some kind of psychological problem or irrational behavior because otherwise your argument falls apart!

stupendousman,

You are a homophobe because sharing a communal shower with other men is fine to you, as long as they are not gay.


If a woman is okay with sharing a communal shower with other women, as long as they are not gay, then she is too a homophobe.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman,

You are a homophobe because sharing a communal shower with other men is fine to you, as long as they are not gay.


If a woman is okay with sharing a communal shower with other women, as long as they are not gay, then she is too a homophobe.

Did the point fly over your head or are you intentionally ignoring it? How is it significantly different to separate women and men? I have asked this question over and over and all you seem to have are ad hominems in response, which appears to show that you have little confidence in the logical validity of what you're saying.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This right is supported by the numerous laws and regulations which have always been on the books which separates and regulates nudity. I'm not just making up what makes me personally comfortable, or some utopian view of what I'd like to happen so that traditional moral and cultural norms are devalued. We've actually implemented these standards into our laws.

The thing I question in this argument is that there’s no real way for you to know that your reasoning is what led to the segregation in public places. It’s a custom that has been in place in European culture for millennia, and it’s been applied to a varying range of locations, both ones where people are naked and ones where people aren’t naked.

For example, toilets—even urinal-free ones—are still (mostly) segregated, even though they’re usually separated by walls and doors and there’s no real possibility of anyone seeing you naked in most of them. And conversely, nude beaches are rarely (if ever?) segregated.

My point is this:

Segregation in public places is, in my opinion, largely a remnant of times when the sexes were segregated to a far greater extent than they are now. Many other remnants of these times have been done away with, since they no longer fit our society, such as segregated beaches, which were a common reality up until no more than a few generations ago (and still are in some places), but would be scorned most places today. Others, such as segregated toilets and changing rooms, still exist, though they are no longer exception-free (as dcmacdaddy’s hockey locker eximplifies).

Whether or not the ones that remain will continue to remain will, if I’m correct, be determined more by whether we as a society deem them too inconvenient to maintain, than by whether or not people feel uncomfortable being naked around other people who are potentially attracted to them.

[The Final Dakar]

So, how does stupendousman account for the fact that soldiers are already showering in front of homosexuals now? Or is this one of those classic "generic" conservative moments, where the status quo is fine because they don't like the logical alternative?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Did the point fly over your head or are you intentionally ignoring it? How is it significantly different to separate women and men? I have asked this question over and over and all you seem to have are ad hominems in response, which appears to show that you have little confidence in the logical validity of what you're saying.

Because a man has a penis and a girl has a vagina?

The military does not want pregnant soldiers.

By your logic, we should be separating Black men from White men, because some White men are "uncomfortable" sharing the same communal shower with Black men.

According to Chuckit, how is separating blacks from whites significantly different from separating men and women.

Maybe prisons should be separated by gay men and straight men?


Maybe astronauts should have a women space station, a male space station, a gay men space station, and a gay women space station.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Because a man has a penis and a girl has a vagina?

The military does not want pregnant soldiers.

By your logic, we should be separating Black men from White men, because some White men are "uncomfortable" sharing the same communal shower with Black men.

According to Chuckit, how is separating blacks from whites significantly different from separating men and women.

Separating men from women is about sex. Separating gays from straights is about sex. Separating blacks from whites is about…sex? No, one of these things is not remotely like the others.

To be perfectly honest, I'm no less comfortable being naked around women or gay men than around straight men (that is to say, it's not my favoritest thing, but whatever). But I think I'm in the minority there. Most women would not feel comfortable changing clothes around men. And once we accept that feeling as reasonable, it seems hypocritical to criticize men for feeling the same way.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Separating men from women is about sex. Separating gays from straights is about sex. Separating blacks from whites is about…sex? No, one of these things is not remotely like the others.

To be perfectly honest, I'm no less comfortable being naked around women or gay men than around straight men (that is to say, it's not my favoritest thing, but whatever). But I think I'm in the minority there. Most women would not feel comfortable changing clothes around men.

Because gay men won't have sex with other gay men?

Gay men only like to butt rape straight men?

I thought the reason why white men don't like sharing a communal shower with black men is because white men are afraid black men might butt rape them.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Because gay men won't have sex with other gay men?

Gay men only like to butt rape straight men?

I thought the reason why white men don't like sharing a communal shower with black men is because white men are afraid black men might butt rape them.

Again you resort to flagrant logical fallacies and misrepresenting what other people say rather than arguing honestly. Do you really have so little confidence in your position?

And no, white men who do not like showering with black men are most likely racists. It is unlikely they are afraid of anal rape, and if you think I'm wrong I invite you to provide evidence. It hardly seems relevant, though, because I've already provided an almost exact analogue — men showering with women. Why don't we use that as our basis for comparison?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd suggest that if you commissioned a poll, most people would say that they'd be uncomfortable being naked in front of people of the opposite sex or sexual orientation in a public situation. Otherwise, they'd likely have done away with segregated bathrooms and there would be no segregation in the military.

You may be right about the poll part--I don't think so, but you may be--but the rest of your statement is completely un-logical. It is not illogical (i.e.: employing logic in an incorrect or faulty manner) but rather completely lacking in logic.

This is the same issue I had with CRASH in the airport safety thread: Logical conclusions are not deterministic. The conclusions you describe above do not imply or logically justify the premise you describe above.

Your concluding statement "Otherwise, they'd likely have done away with segregated bathrooms and there would be no segregation in the military" can in NO WAY be proven logically by your premise statement "most people would say that they'd be uncomfortable being naked in front of people of the opposite sex or sexual orientation in a public situation".

In other words, simply because we currently employ sex-segregated public bathrooms and sex-segregated military barracks DOES NOT prove logically that the majority of people want or are in favor of this level of separation of the sexes. You really would need to conduct that hypothesized poll to be ale to say for certain that most people would be "uncomfortable being naked in front of people of the opposite sex or sexual orientation in a public situation".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Separating men from women is about sex. Separating gays from straights is about sex. Separating blacks from whites is about…sex? No, one of these things is not remotely like the others.

Well, if you don't think a person's sexual orientation is a fundamental part of their identity then "one of these things is not remotely like the others". However, if like me and others you view a person's sexual orientation as fundamental to who they are then you accept that sexual orientation is a permanent facet of someone's identity as much as their racial identity or sex identity.

The way I see it, all individuals all over the world have a few basic components to their identity that are immutable except in extreme circumstances/situations. I think these components are one's sex (male, female, inter-sex), race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You may be right about the poll part--I don't think so, but you may be--but the rest of your statement is completely un-logical. It is not illogical (i.e.: employing logic in an incorrect or faulty manner) but rather completely lacking in logic.

This is the same issue I had with CRASH in the airport safety thread: Logical conclusions are not deterministic. The conclusions you describe above do not imply or logically justify the premise you describe above.

Your concluding statement "Otherwise, they'd likely have done away with segregated bathrooms and there would be no segregation in the military" can in NO WAY be proven logically by your premise statement "most people would say that they'd be uncomfortable being naked in front of people of the opposite sex or sexual orientation in a public situation".

In other words, simply because we currently employ sex-segregated public bathrooms and sex-segregated military barracks DOES NOT prove logically that the majority of people want or are in favor of this level of separation of the sexes. You really would need to conduct that hypothesized poll to be ale to say for certain that most people would be "uncomfortable being naked in front of people of the opposite sex or sexual orientation in a public situation".

I think the question is, do you disagree with stupendousman's perception of popular opinion? Do you really think most women would be comfortable changing and using the bathroom in the presence of men? If not, it doesn't seem worth quibbling about.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well, if you don't think a person's sexual orientation is a fundamental part of their identity then "one of these things is not remotely like the others". However, if like me and others you view a person'a sexual orientation as fundamental to who they are then you accept that sexual orientation is a permanent facet of someone's identity as much as their racial identity or sex identity.

The way I see it, all individuals all over the world have a few basic components to their identity that are immutable except in extreme circumstances/situations. I think these components are one's sex (male, female, inter-sex), race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

I don't see how what you said has anything to do with what I said. My post had nothing to do with whether any of these things are integral to a person's identity.

Incidentally, I don't think there is a single correct answer to that question anyway — my race and sex are peripheral to my sense of identity, and if I woke up tomorrow as a Maori woman, it wouldn't particularly bother me (though it would be a little bit weird). Other people are very strongly defined by these things.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Again you resort to flagrant logical fallacies and misrepresenting what other people say rather than arguing honestly. Do you really have so little confidence in your position?

And no, white men who do not like showering with black men are most likely racists. It is unlikely they are afraid of anal rape, and if you think I'm wrong I invite you to provide evidence. It hardly seems relevant, though, because I've already provided an almost exact analogue — men showering with women. Why don't we use that as our basis for comparison?

I have expressed this already, in this thread and elsewhere, but I think that in the military men and women should be made to shower and bunk together during basic training. I think the separation of the sexes was a necessary restriction when women were first allowed to join the military--to ease their acceptance into the previously all-male military structure--but now with women serving in almost every military capacity I see no reason to maintain this practice of separation of the sexes.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't see how what you said has anything to do with what I said. My post had nothing to do with whether any of these things are integral to a person's identity.

You were questioning how hyteckit mentioned race in a post about sexual identity. I replied that for many people sexual orientation is seen as a fundamental aspect of a person's identity no different than race. Therefore, an analogy, poor as it may have been, based on race *is* appropriate in a discussion about sexual orientation. It's comparing like to like (race as a fundamental aspect of a person's identity is like sexual orientation which is also a fundamental aspect of a person's identity).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

The way I see it, all individuals all over the world have a few basic components to their identity that are immutable except in extreme circumstances/situations. I think these components are one's sex (male, female, inter-sex), race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not immutable unlike the genetic components of our identity. If you'd like to discuss this we could start by using recidivism rates among alcoholics and the failure rate of its treatment or a wealth of other conditions and the failure rates of their treatment. You may believe this, but this is fringe-speak IMO.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think the question is, do you disagree with stupendousman's perception of popular opinion? Do you really think most women would be comfortable changing and using the bathroom in the presence of men? If not, it doesn't seem worth quibbling about.

Yes, I do disagree with "stupendousman's perception of popular opinion". Although, I would suggest that his statement be modified with an age qualifier. Because, I think most women today over the age of 40 would be uncomfortable "changing and using the bathroom in the presence of men" whereas I think most women under the age of 30 would not be uncomfortable "changing and using the bathroom in the presence of men". The problem is that stupendousman makes such a board generalization that he lumps in 70-year-old women with 25-year-old women with his remark which is just more sloppy debating.

And yes, it is *always* worth quibbling about logic in a debate. Without logic we have nothing but subjective opinions masquerading as objective fact and a whole lot more poo-flinging (than usual).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You were questioning how hyteckit mentioned race in a post about sexual identity. I replied that for many people sexual orientation is seen as a fundamental aspect of a person's identity no different than race. Therefore, an analogy, poor as it may have been, based on race *is* appropriate in a discussion about sexual orientation. It's comparing like to like (race as a fundamental aspect of a person's identity is like sexual orientation which is also a fundamental aspect of a person's identity).

Nope. I said nothing about a person's identity whatsoever. Feel free to reread. I simply said sex.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sexual orientation is not immutable unlike the genetic components of our identity. If you'd like to discuss this we could start by using recidivism rates among alcoholics and the failure rate of its treatment or a wealth of other conditions and the failure rates of their treatment. You may believe this, but this is fringe-speak IMO.

Sexual orientation is far more genetic in nature than it is "psycho-social" (to use your terminology for the reasons why people are homosexual). Several pages back I suggested we have that debate again--we had it once 4 or 5 years ago--so if you are now ready to have that debate let's go start a new thread.

And what does "recidivism rates among alcoholics and the failure rate of its treatment or a wealth of other conditions and the failure rates of their treatment" have to do with homosexuality? Are you trying to suggest homosexuality is an illness? that homosexuality is something that could be/should be "treated" in a medical sense? Why bring up this tangent about "failure rates of treatment" for medical conditions in a discussion about homosexuality?
I am still waiting for you to come out again and say you think homosexuality is a mental illness. You *are* on record here as having said that in the past.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Nope. I said nothing about a person's identity whatsoever. Feel free to reread. I simply said sex.

Umm, my whole argument is based on the stance that a person's sex, or the sex act in which they engage, is a fundamental part of their personal identity. So, if you used the term "sex" as identifier for the male/female/inter-sex distinction of the people in your comparison or if you used the term "sex" an an identifier for the sex act enjoyed by the people in your comparison you were using the term sex as an identifier of a fundamental characteristic (either their sex or their sexual orientation) of a person's identity.


So when you said, "Separating men from women is about sex. Separating gays from straights is about sex. Separating blacks from whites is about…sex? No, one of these things is not remotely like the others."

I read your statement as, "Separating men from women is about [a person's sex, a part of their fundamental identity]. Separating gays from straights is about [a person's sexual orientation, a part of their fundamental identity]. Separating blacks from white is about [a person's race, a part of their fundamental identity]? [Yes], one of these things *is* like the others." Hence, my rebuttal to your statement.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Again you resort to flagrant logical fallacies and misrepresenting what other people say rather than arguing honestly. Do you really have so little confidence in your position?

And no, white men who do not like showering with black men are most likely racists. It is unlikely they are afraid of anal rape, and if you think I'm wrong I invite you to provide evidence. It hardly seems relevant, though, because I've already provided an almost exact analogue — men showering with women. Why don't we use that as our basis for comparison?

I don't like showering with men, straight or gay.

As for sharing the same communal shower.

Do I really think White men who don't want to share the same communal shower with Black men are afraid of butt rape? No.

White men who are afraid of sharing the same communal shower with Black men are most likely racist.

Straight men who are afraid of sharing the same communal shower with gay men are most likely homophobic.

[hyteckit]

This whole argument about gays in the shower is ridiculous, as a case against gays in the military. It's idiotic.

It's just rationalizing homophobic attitudes.

There this new invention called shower stalls with curtain. Get the military base to install shower stalls with curtains so those who are homophobic and afraid there might be gay men in the shower looking at their junk while they are showering, can just use the shower stall and close the curtain while they are showering.

If you are spending $1 billion recruiting people into the military, you can take $1 million from that budget and install shower stalls and curtains.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman,

You are a homophobe because sharing a communal shower with other men is fine to you, as long as they are not gay.

Hyteckit,

A "phobia" is an irrational fear. I have no fear, therefore I can't have a "phobia" and be a "phobe". I prefer not to shower with those whose orientation might cause them to be be aroused by my gender, and that includes STRAIGHT women.

It's my right not to have my naked body objectified for someone else's sexual pleasure without my permission whether that person is straight or gay. If it were only gay men I chose not to get naked around, MAYBE you'd have a point. Given that I don't, you are really reaching in a way that is totally intellectually dishonest. You should be ashamed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, how does stupendousman account for the fact that soldiers are already showering in front of homosexuals now?

The same way I account for the fact that men are getting caught secretly watching women disrobe every day. Of course, like the issue with gay men secretly in the military, we are talking about a very small percentage of people engaging in this behavior. I'm not for allowing gays in the military, or for straight men to watch a woman disrobe without her permission without there being legal consequences. I'm pretty consistent.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

was talking about people who followed the pattern you described: avoiding to change/shower in front of people they knew were gay. That’s hard not to make obvious. You can only sit on the bench pretending to check your messages or text someone for so long.

You can simply choose not to shower there. You can go somewhere else until the person in question is done. You can enter the shower area after you already know the person in question is gone. There's a bunch of ways to do it that unless the person in question was essentially stalking the other person, they wouldn't have a clue.

Why does it have to be every day or at least several times a week?

Because very infrequently showering with close friends who happen to be morally flexible isn't really a very good measuring stick for what the majority would do the majority of the time.

And conversely, do you find yourself in showering/changing situations with people you/others know to be gay present often enough to make a credible observation that others generally, or even just frequently, avoid changing/showering in front of the gay guys?

Like ebuddy explained, I like the vast majority, avoid showering in public unless it's the only reasonable option, and then I try to be discreet. I've never knowingly showered in front of a woman who I was not romantically involved with or a gay man. Whenever I've been in a gym changing room these days, the showers are pretty much empty. People wait until they get home to shower.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Segregation in public places is, in my opinion, largely a remnant of times when the sexes were segregated to a far greater extent than they are now.

I disagree. A bathroom is still a place where you remove your clothing enough to uncover your genitalia, and most people would like to remove the chances of those who might become aroused by their nudity to do so.

There are further structures inside the bathroom to give you additional privacy so that you don't have to do your business in front of even those of the same sex, because there is an additional desire for civilized people to have an additional level of privacy and not to have strangers watch them go to the bathroom.

There are still reasons why we have sexual segregation and they really haven't changed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I have expressed this already, in this thread and elsewhere, but I think that in the military men and women should be made to shower and bunk together during basic training. I think the separation of the sexes was a necessary restriction when women were first allowed to join the military--to ease their acceptance into the previously all-male military structure--but now with women serving in almost every military capacity I see no reason to maintain this practice of separation of the sexes.

I think that your reasoning as to why women and men where first separated has no real basis in reality.

When women were first allowed to join the military, the military functioned the same way it does now, and the women and men followed the same laws, cultural rules and regulations regarding personal privacy and nudity that they do today.

You can't instill your utopian vision of what military should be like without overcoming a huge moral/cultural barrier that is pretty deeply ingrained into the rules and regulations society uses to protect personal privacy.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Sexual orientation is far more genetic in nature than it is "psycho-social" (to use your terminology for the reasons why people are homosexual). Several pages back I suggested we have that debate again--we had it once 4 or 5 years ago--so if you are now ready to have that debate let's go start a new thread.

Conversely, there is far more documentation regarding the psycho-social/environmental factors of sexual orientation than any genetic component. As cited last year, researchers attempting to find a genetic link to homosexuality are among the very first to cite the psycho-social/environmental components. You may recall 3 Down, 47 Left To Go that we had last spring and summer. You contributed to that thread on several occassions, but you didn't address my points in that thread. If you're now ready to address them, you may post a new thread topic and have at it. It will of course end in disagreement, but...

And what does "recidivism rates among alcoholics and the failure rate of its treatment or a wealth of other conditions and the failure rates of their treatment" have to do with homosexuality?

I'm merely stating that there's equally little statistically to suggest these conditions are "mutable" by your logic.

Are you trying to suggest homosexuality is an illness? that homosexuality is something that could be/should be "treated" in a medical sense? Why bring up this tangent about "failure rates of treatment" for medical conditions in a discussion about homosexuality?

You don't think that if a genetic link to homosexuality were found, the overwhelming majority of parents of homosexual children wouldn't want it "treated"? Be careful what you wish for. It may be worthwhile to continue more research into the role of psycho-social/environmental factors during upbringing, but it has become such a political football that this will be next to impossible. In the meantime, we'll continue to fight the less contentious of psycho-social/environmental manifestations with a dismally low success rate. I'm saying the psycho-social/environmental role in human sexuality enjoys far more academia, empirical evidence, and affirmation than any notions of a genetic link. The first to tell you this are those interested in researching potential genetic links. Again, already addressed.

I am still waiting for you to come out again and say you think homosexuality is a mental illness. You *are* on record here as having said that in the past.

Of course you'll put this in white text and you'll keep repeating it because you absolutely, positively must first compartmentalize arguments. While it is fairly apparent where I stand on this issue, you will not be satisfied until you're able to box it into an argument that suits you. Weird thing is, I can't possibly fathom how this line of questioning helps your point.

Tell me, what good does it do you or your argument if I were to say; "homosexuality is a mental illness."?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conversely, there is far more documentation regarding the psycho-social/environmental factors of sexual orientation than any genetic component. As cited last year, researchers attempting to find a genetic link to homosexuality are among the very first to cite the psycho-social/environmental components. You may recall 3 Down, 47 Left To Go that we had last spring and summer. You contributed to that thread on several occassions, but you didn't address my points in that thread. If you're now ready to address them, you may post a new thread topic and have at it. It will of course end in disagreement, but...

Yet you made a flat, declarative, statement that "there is no homosexual gene; there just isn't," as if you know this with absolute certainty. You don't know that for a fact, but you presuppose your arguments on it. Research on genetics is still a relatively new field, and genes that determine certain conditions are being discovered regularly, yet you're prepared to make such a statement (most likely because it fits into your neatly compartmentalized structure of how you view homosexuality).

You don't think that if a genetic link to homosexuality were found, the overwhelming majority of parents of homosexual children wouldn't want it "treated"? Be careful what you wish for.

As the parent of a lesbian, I couldn't care less whether it's "treatable," or not. My daughter is who she is, and I love her unconditionally, because it doesn't affect my life (or yours, or anyone else for that matter). For reasons we don't know yet she has chosen to love a person of the same sex, yet you've already made up your mind as to why that is.

It may be worthwhile to continue more research into the role of psycho-social/environmental factors during upbringing, but it has become such a political football that this will be next to impossible. In the meantime, we'll continue to fight the less contentious of psycho-social/environmental manifestations with a dismally low success rate. I'm saying the psycho-social/environmental role in human sexuality enjoys far more academia, empirical evidence, and affirmation than any notions of a genetic link. The first to tell you this are those interested in researching potential genetic links. Again, already addressed.

Of course you'd like to have more research into the psycho-social/environmental factors, as it would give you more ammunition to declare homosexuals as mentally ill people.

Of course you'll put this in white text and you'll keep repeating it because you absolutely, positively must first compartmentalize arguments. While it is fairly apparent where I stand on this issue, you will not be satisfied until you're able to box it into an argument that suits you. Weird thing is, I can't possibly fathom how this line of questioning helps your point.

Tell me, what good does it do you or your argument if I were to say; "homosexuality is a mental illness."?

You're the one who compartmentalizes the issue; you've already made up your mind. History is full of stories of people like you, who once were 100% certain the earth was flat, and who were 100% certain of a number of things that have come to be clearly regarded as nonsense.