Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#377 Dec 29 2010 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Backpedaling and twisting the subject.


Sure, sparky. Whatever. Live in your delusional world.
#378 Dec 29 2010 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Sure, sparky. Whatever. Live in your delusional world.

Usually this is no solace to me, because people still vote based on delusions. But not this time. This time they lost. Even though in the future their opposition will be forgotten, white washed, or even twisted as having championed *** rights, and even though no lessons will be learned, today--now--is victory. The past can be tarnished, but the present can not be diminished.

Don't worry, even I don't buy my own spiel.
#379 Dec 29 2010 at 11:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
In thinking about it, another reason that men and women are, for the most part, kept seperated when in communal naked spaces has to do with mitigating risk. I'm not sure how many men realize this, but if a woman is to be in a doctors office and asked to remove any clothing by a male doctor, a female nurse is asked to step into the room. This is just as much for the doctor's protection (maybe even moreso, really) as for the woman's protection. I wonder if that plays a factor here, as well.


Men and women are kept separate for several reasons, mainly sociological, cultural reasons stemming from childhood. Whether or not they're good ones is up for debate.

1) Body shame. As children, we are taught that certain parts of our bodies are only for us (our "privates"). Part of this is to protect us from predators, and part of it is simply part of the Puritan background of not showing skin. Children will gladly go about naked and exposing themselves if not taught to do otherwise, usually through scolding. As a result, most of us grow up with a deeply ingrained sense that we should not expose ourselves to others, especially those of the opposite ***. However, children typically are taught that it is ok for their same-*** immediate family (other trusted individuals) to see them.

2) Sexuality innocence. As children grow, we generally try to suppress their knowledge of sexuality until later adolescence (aside from discouraging it). We continue to segregate them by *** so that they have less exposure to sexual temptation and knowledge.

3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape. Sexual urges increase, and the substantial weight and strength advantage that males typically have over women increases the risk considerably. Women are also likely to feel afraid of men in such situations (considering they are afraid of them in many safer situations, like simply walking in a public place). While there may be similar urges by placing like sexes together, the lower prevalence of homosexuality alongside the more similar physiques makes it far less of a problem.

So even among the reasons that do relate to comfort, they are predominantly a matter of comfort with respect to gender rather than sexuality for adults. Of course MEN are typically less comfortable with the idea of showering with a *** man than a woman. That has nothing to do with the social reasons with which we originally began (and continue) segregating men and women (primarily for female protection, puritanism, and to reduce adolescent ***).
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#380 Dec 30 2010 at 4:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Death wrote:
Anybody that has served in the military, has ALREADY showered with *** members of the same ***. They've done so for the most part, knowing full well, or suspecting that those people were ***. Anyone that claims otherwise is a fool, and a liar. There have always been *** people in the military, and they have always showered with their straight counterparts. Whether they serve openly or not is irrelevant. Almost nobody in the military is going to come out as *** and shock people, everyone around them is going to respond with "Yup, I figured he/she was *****".

The point is moot. STFU and move on.


You're ignorant. You're just making up crap. Please silence yourself.


Wrong again fUcknuts. I spent most of my time in the Navy living in a room about the size of a school bus with 18 other guys. You really can't get any closer living arrangements. Everyone knew (or suspected with a high degree of accuracy) who was *** and who was not.

Again, the point is moot. Straights and gays have been showering together in the military since the invention of the shower. And Varus's arguments look thoughtful and well planned compared to your disjointed gibberish. Please, shut the fUck up and go away.
#381 Dec 30 2010 at 6:07 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
It's hardly indicative of great insight to know whether someone in the navy is *** or not.

Hint: they are.

Edited, Dec 30th 2010 12:09pm by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#382 Dec 30 2010 at 6:26 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Backpedaling and twisting the subject.


Sure, sparky. Whatever. Live in your delusional world.


How is posting my original post backpedaling and twisting the subject? Just admit that you were wrong. You confused my argument with a fictional one that you made up. Why don't you read Kachi's response quoted below. That is the real reason why men and women are separated, not that trash that you made up. So at this point, you can accept the truth (what Kachi posted below) or stay in denial. You know and everyone knows that this separation is psychological.

Kachi, The Person With the Right Answer wrote:
Men and women are kept separate for several reasons, mainly sociological, cultural reasons stemming from childhood. Whether or not they're good ones is up for debate.

1) Body shame. As children, we are taught that certain parts of our bodies are only for us (our "privates"). Part of this is to protect us from predators, and part of it is simply part of the Puritan background of not showing skin. Children will gladly go about naked and exposing themselves if not taught to do otherwise, usually through scolding. As a result, most of us grow up with a deeply ingrained sense that we should not expose ourselves to others, especially those of the opposite ***. However, children typically are taught that it is ok for their same-*** immediate family (other trusted individuals) to see them.

2) Sexuality innocence. As children grow, we generally try to suppress their knowledge of sexuality until later adolescence (aside from discouraging it). We continue to segregate them by *** so that they have less exposure to sexual temptation and knowledge.

3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape. Sexual urges increase, and the substantial weight and strength advantage that males typically have over women increases the risk considerably. Women are also likely to feel afraid of men in such situations (considering they are afraid of them in many safer situations, like simply walking in a public place). While there may be similar urges by placing like sexes together, the lower prevalence of homosexuality alongside the more similar physiques makes it far less of a problem.

So even among the reasons that do relate to comfort, they are predominantly a matter of comfort with respect to gender rather than sexuality for adults. Of course MEN are typically less comfortable with the idea of showering with a *** man than a woman. That has nothing to do with the social reasons with which we originally began (and continue) segregating men and women (primarily for female protection, puritanism, and to reduce adolescent ***).



QFT.. That is right.. of course with you saying that, it will be treated differently than me saying it. That's all I'm saying is to acknowledge the fact that this is all about comfort, but when men use "comfort" against *** men, it is negatively labeled.

Death wrote:
Wrong again @#%^nuts. I spent most of my time in the Navy living in a room about the size of a school bus with 18 other guys. You really can't get any closer living arrangements. Everyone knew (or suspected with a high degree of accuracy) who was *** and who was not.

Again, the point is moot. Straights and gays have been showering together in the military since the invention of the shower. And Varus's arguments look thoughtful and well planned compared to your disjointed gibberish. Please, shut the @#%^ up and go away.


Let me break this down for you. I'm not denying the living conditions of the military. My dad was in the Navy, I've been on Tiger cruises and seen the living conditions. What I'm calling you out on is the belief that every military person showered with a homosexual. You simply don't know that, because you're just making that up. In the handful of times that I actually did participate in an open shower, there is a much higher percentage that I have not as opposed to I have showered with a homosexual. Have I ever? I don't know, maybe maybe not. But with 5-10 group showers in my life, you can't say with confidence that I have.

There's a reason why other servicemen label the Navy as "***". You can't compare your time in the Navy with other services on living conditions, because they are completely different.

So, as I said earlier, please silence yourself. You sound real ignorant.


Edit: Quoted for relevance:

"It's hardly indicative of great insight to know whether someone in the navy is *** or not.

Hint: they are. " - Kavekk


Edited, Dec 30th 2010 2:27pm by Almalieque
#383 Dec 30 2010 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
what have i done
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#384 Dec 30 2010 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How is posting my original post backpedaling and twisting the subject?


You're using privacy as a reason for why DADT shouldn't be repealed. Now that you realize how assinine that sounds, you've decided to change your tune and pretend you were just trying to stick up for the men who are afraid to shower in a communal space with someone who might be homosexual.

That's called backpedalling. And you trying to pretend that's what you were on about from the very begining is called twisting the subject.

I understand why you need it spelled out for you. It's difficult to be confronted with your delusions. Smiley: frown

And while I don't disagree with Kachi, and have said some of the same things myself, you're both idiots if you think those are the only reasons that exist for why men and women are seperated in communal naked places. There are a myriad of reasons, and sure, comfort is one of them. Some comforts are understandable and should be accomodated. Some should not be tolerated.

If it makes a platoon in the army more comfortable to shower with underage girls, should we then change the rules for them?
#385 Dec 30 2010 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Quote:

3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#386 Dec 30 2010 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,277 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


I always though women had developed a natural defense to this situation by comparing the men's ***** sizes in front of them. It would either disable a man by making him turn away in shame, or have them start taunting each other which would shift focus away from the women allowing them to escape.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#387 Dec 30 2010 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


I always though women had developed a natural defense to this situation by comparing the men's ***** sizes in front of them. It would either disable a man by making him turn away in shame, or have them start taunting each other which would shift focus away from the women allowing them to escape.


what were you thinking when you made this post

what were you thinking
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#389 Dec 30 2010 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,277 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


I always though women had developed a natural defense to this situation by comparing the men's ***** sizes in front of them. It would either disable a man by making him turn away in shame, or have them start taunting each other which would shift focus away from the women allowing them to escape.


what were you thinking when you made this post

what were you thinking


I don't know. Let me ask NyQuil, he'll be able to figure it out.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#390 Dec 30 2010 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#391 Dec 30 2010 at 7:08 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
Now than I can shower with other men while screaming "I'M ***!!", I plan on joining the military. It just wasn't the same without the yelling and obvious pixie dust wafting off my skin.
____________________________
Mazra wrote:
When you cast Moonfire on someone, it's not some Druid base on the moon launching a precision deathbeam across space to strike people
#392 Dec 30 2010 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
CBD wrote:
Now than I can shower with other men while screaming "I'M ***!!", I plan on joining the military. It just wasn't the same without the yelling and obvious pixie dust wafting off my skin.


I've been wondering where you were in this thread.
#393 Dec 30 2010 at 9:51 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:

3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


To be fair in playing Devil's Advocate, theoretically, no it wouldn't, but in practice, maybe. I wouldn't go so far to say "rape", but I wouldn't doubt an increase in sexual harassment. This goes back to my point. It's typically acceptable for a woman to express such concern of being harassed or assaulted, but not men, when in both scenarios, the "attacker" is a man.

Again, not saying double standards are inherently bad or good, but they exist. I would argue that women are more likely to come forward about a sexual harassment or sexual assault than men. I would go further to say that a male's pride is probably the biggest reason for him not to come forward in fear of being ridiculed or seen less of a man, while a woman is probably fear of further harassment.

There was a male Soldier in my last unit who was sexually assaulted by a *** man and they were definitely feelings of embarrassment floating.
#394 Dec 30 2010 at 10:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
It's typically acceptable for a woman to express such concern of being harassed or assaulted, but not men, when in both scenarios, the "attacker" is a man.

Again, not saying double standards are inherently bad or good, but they exist.

Unless it's statistically more likely to a significant degree that women would be harassed by men than men by men or women by women. In which case it makes complete sense to make arrangements accounting for the majority cases and leave the minority cases to be handled in some other fashion as they arise.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#396 Dec 31 2010 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
That's all I'm saying is to acknowledge the fact that this is all about comfort, but when men use "comfort" against *** men, it is negatively labeled.


As it probably should be. Comfort is only ONE of the reasons for segregation in the first place, and in those cases, it is because men are able to easily overpower women-- women who are legitimately afraid to be around men in a vulnerable state. Men are typically comfortable in this situation BECAUSE they have nothing to worry about from women. And men and women are not really afraid of sharing facilities with the same ***-- just uncomfortable. There's a substantial difference between a shyness/modesty/homophobia and fear. Plenty of males and females are uncomfortable changing or showering around the same ***-- that doesn't mean they're afraid of them.

Quote:
you're both idiots if you think those are the only reasons that exist for why men and women are seperated in communal naked places.


Those were the only major ones I could think of. If you know of others, please share.

Quote:
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


It probably would, but not significantly, no. However, shared locker rooms and showers-- places where people are undressing-- are the primary places for elevated risk, and surprise surprise, these are the places that opponents of gays in the military are most concerned with.

If there was any doubt from my earlier post, I strongly support the repeal. Restricting the freedom to perform a job one is perfectly capable of doing based on what is at best a weak case for an inconvenience just doesn't jive with me in the least. I thought I made that clear enough otherwise.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#397 Dec 31 2010 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
LAST
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#398 Dec 31 2010 at 7:40 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It's typically acceptable for a woman to express such concern of being harassed or assaulted, but not men, when in both scenarios, the "attacker" is a man.

Again, not saying double standards are inherently bad or good, but they exist.

Unless it's statistically more likely to a significant degree that women would be harassed by men than men by men or women by women. In which case it makes complete sense to make arrangements accounting for the majority cases and leave the minority cases to be handled in some other fashion as they arise.


I'm not denying that. That's why I say double standards aren't inherently bad or good. It's only logical to make the separation as it is currently done, but at the same time, people shouldn't act like the men's concern is somehow different than women's concern in reference to comfort.


oh, as for the downplaying of the survey, I kept forgetting to reply. I can't prove that you were just "making fun of me" and not downplaying the survey, but it very well seems that you were doing both by mentioning the local gas station suggestion box. By mentioning that, it appeared as if you were making a comparison of the two. I'll leave it at that.


Kachi wrote:
As it probably should be. Comfort is only ONE of the reasons for segregation in the first place, and in those cases, it is because men are able to easily overpower women-- women who are legitimately afraid to be around men in a vulnerable state.


Correction, Comfort is the MAIN reason for the segregation. The women's concern is just as legitimate as the men's concern, because they are the same thing. How is the man not in any less vulnerable state? Haven't heard "Don't drop the soap" before?

As pointed out, the person next to you does not affect you washing yourself in any way, shape or form. You are simply afraid, prejudging that a man might do something or just not comfortable with the idea of sharing a shower. It's one or the other and people label it as "legitimate" for women and "homophobia" for men.

Kachi wrote:
Plenty of males and females are uncomfortable changing or showering around the same ***-- that doesn't mean they're afraid of them.


This is my point exactly. They are people expressing otherwise. Some people may just feel uncomfortable changing around homosexuals, but they aren't afraid of them.

Kachi wrote:
It probably would, but not significantly, no. However, shared locker rooms and showers-- places where people are undressing-- are the primary places for elevated risk, and surprise surprise,


From my "research" and years of propaganda reception, rape more commonly occurs with someone you know in a private area. If you were alone in a public shower, I can see an increase in rape, but I would argue a higher result of sexual harassment than assault.

Kachi wrote:
these are the places that opponents of gays in the military are most concerned with.

Concerned, yes, but not because of an increase of assault or harassment, just out of comfort. If a *** person wasn't doing those things before, s/he probably isn't going to start doing them being open.

In any case, that was my point to the OP, these concerns aren't based on bigotry, just comfort.

Kachi wrote:
If there was any doubt from my earlier post, I strongly support the repeal. Restricting the freedom to perform a job one is perfectly capable of doing based on what is at best a weak case for an inconvenience just doesn't jive with me in the least. I thought I made that clear enough otherwise.

You say weak, yet all of society (practically world wide) segregates men and women on the same inconvenience.

This is all politics. Women are still restricted from performing certain jobs and there is no outcry, because no one cares beyond women being able to serve.

I wouldn't be surprised if they treat the homosexuals just as they do women, not authorized to be in certain combat arms and special teams since they are the ones that express the greatest discomfort. LOL that would be funny because society would fight that and then the women would be upset because they haven't been able to join those organization for a much longer time.



#399 Dec 31 2010 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
In Alma's world, all *** men have no restraint and will go at any other male no matter his orientation or where they are. Or if they're even attracted to said "vulnerable male".
#400 Dec 31 2010 at 8:24 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nadenu wrote:
In Alma's world, all *** men have no restraint and will go at any other male no matter his orientation or where they are. Or if they're even attracted to said "vulnerable male".


No, in my world, homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men in reference to sexual desires.


Why do you insist that there's more to it other than what it really is?
#401 Dec 31 2010 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
LAST
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 99 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (99)