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.
No, as I have already pointed out, we are also generally brought up taught that our same *** immediate family can see us nude, and then that the same *** can change in the same room. The latter of these is generally an awkward and uncomfortable moment that we learn to deal with, some of us better than others. So there is a difference. We are taught much earlier and much more strictly to keep our private parts private from the opposite ***.
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.
As I've already pointed out at least twice, in the case of women, their fear comes primarily from the distinct physical advantage that men have over them. This is a fact, supported by many studies. I have never seen a study demonstrating that men have any substantial fear of being overpowered and sexually assaulted by other men (outside of prison, which in many cases are not even about sexuality).
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.
Your statement was too general to assume that you were talking about the U.S. military, but please name a position that women are disqualified from where they are able to adequately perform the essential tasks.
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 *** 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 *** or sexuality of the people.
That sort of completely misses the point. Particularly in the military, just as a matter of sheer human physiology, it's extremely rare for a woman to have a physical advantage on a male (being an average of 30 lbs. lighter and having far less upper body strength) and for there to actually be a risk for sexual assault in that case. If you figure sexual assault as an equation that factors both exposure between assailant and victim, and advantage of assailant and victim, the numbers would clearly show a tremendous increase in men and women grouped together versus men grouped together, even ***, and women grouped together, even ***. We pretty much already have those figures, considering that as others have pointed out, *** people are and have been there. The incidence: extremely low. The incidence in the former situation? You tell me.
Think I'm done with this, unless I get the sense that dignifying you with a response will actually get somewhere.
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.