Senate Repeals DADTFollow

If you thought this was true, you wouldn't keep trying to use some emotionally laden phrase as a bludgeon for your arguments.


They are different. For one thing, they're considerably less significant from a statistical point of view.


You're right you can't because that's exactly what was happening. But feel free to make up your own reality in your head to justify your ******** if it makes you feel better.

Because all the men I know, straight or gay, have restraint.

It's been YEARS since some guy dry humped me in an elevator.

dammit

Well, I guess you'd know what you were thinking.


Man, what a double standard. :(

I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.

I got lost in a pile of clothing at work. I think I'm back now.

What's weird about this thread is that Alma is sort of acknowledging that he has no real point. It almost makes me feel like I should just leave again.

What Bard said.

I don't think I said anything about women.

Numbnut.

I don't really think those add on the reasons I gave. Anatomical differences relate to those body shame and sexual innocence reasons I gave, and sexual innocence and rape relate to sexual assault accusations (when I said "rape" I was being hyperbolic-- I was referring to any kind of sexual assault/harassment). But yes, those are valid points.



Not really, at least not in the way you mean. The main reason for adult gender segregation is that it's a holdover from our upbringings. We grow up doing it, and we don't bother trying to change it, because that would involve a psychological rewiring that simply isn't practical versus any potential "benefits." Basically, we start doing it as kids and never really consider doing it any other way.

You could argue that "we're not comfortable with the idea of changing it," just like "we're not comfortable with changing with homosexuals," but that's tantamount to defending homophobia. We already change with homosexuals-- we probably all have at some point.



You either missed my point or you're just wrong. Women are still allowed to do those jobs, and my point was that gays should be allowed to as well. It's a minor inconvenience to allow women to serve if you provide separate facilities, but we let them serve. There's no stronger an argument for prohibiting gays from serving.



No, they're not. Women are not restricted from performing virtually any job in which they are physically capable of performing the essential tasks. If they are, they are only an easily-settled lawsuit away from being allowed.



They're not exactly the same though-- not even close. Men have a distinct physical (not to mention socially systemic) advantage against women. Gay men do not have that same advantage against other men.

Keep up with what? You haven't had a point since you started posting in this thread.

Junior.

This has nothing to do with upbringing. As other posters stated, we are taught that our private parts should be kept private, that includes both men and women, heterosexual or homosexual. So, in our first open shower experience, we have to rewire our psychological thinking. So there is no difference.



That's the thing, it isn't homophobia, that's just BS that proponents say to scare people into their views. If men are homophobes for not feeling comfortable of changing in front of homosexuals, then those women are heterophobes for not feeling comfortable for changing in front of men. The thought of the two are equally stupid, yet you only want to recognize one.



I was referencing to showers, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. You say that it is a "weak" argument, yet the same segregation occurs for the same exact reason practically world wide.



I'm sorry, I'm talking about the U.S military, which military are you referring to? Anybody in the U.S military can tell you that women do not have the same opportunities as men.



You are making the assumption that an assault has already occurred, which is the prejudice I'm referring to. You are making the assumption that a heterosexual man is unable to shower next to a woman without control. If not, then what's the problem?

As for the advantages of the men, you don't know the physical advantage unless you actually seen the two men. That's like saying a man can't fight a man because they're physically equal. That's stupid. Once again, there was a male soldier in my last unit sexually assaulted by a gay man. It all depends on the size of the two people. It's possible for a woman to overpower a man as well. It's just the likelihood of that is not as high. It's all about the size of the people, not the sex or sexuality of the people.



Only stupid, ignorant or bigoted people believe discrimination based on a psychological trait is the same as physical trait, so you choose. I seriously can't believe the amount of denial on this thread. The main reason why women don't want to share showers with men is that they are AFRAID of getting raped, sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and or don't want men looking at their goods. I guarantee you those are in the top 3 reasons of a woman not wanting to shower with men, PERIOD. To pretend otherwise is just plain stupid.




Edited, Jan 1st 2011 6:18am by Almalieque

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 6:20am by Almalieque

You mean this one?



Wow, that's crazy, that's even on this very same page.. Your failure to read isn't a failure on my part.

let me walk you through it, since you couldn't get it.

Do you believe heterosexual men would have "Better things to do" rather than checking out the women that they are attracted to in a shower?



Awwww. you're still butt-hurt for looking like a fool by trying to convince me that I was changing points. You must have felt pretty silly when I can quote where I've TOLD you my very point multiple times through out the thread. This is the very same point you said that I was "changing" to... it's ok.. You can admit that you were wrong, it's ok.



From the moment they decided to separate women and men, they took comfort into consideration.

You would be surprised. I thought you were once in the military? The military is very political when it comes to certain things. The higher you get up the chain, the less stuff you can do and more things you can't do. When my dad was in the Navy, they had to undergo training prior to being integrated with women on the ship. If they didn't care about "comfort", there wouldn't have been any training.

Every time there is a change of command, there is supposed to be a climate survey to see how the unit feels about things being conducted. Not only that, the DoD sent us surveys on how we would feel if DADT was removed and that was used in the basis of their argument.

Also, people joined to go thousands of miles away to live in a heavily cramped quarters to shoot and kill people. That's why many have joined. So, women join the military to be thousands of miles away, living in a heavily cramped quarters to shoot and kill people and the potential of men checking out their breast, thighs and behinds is just too uncomfortable? Wake up call: Those women didn't join to be a piece of eye candy for men to drool over. They joined to accomplish a mission in the military.