RDD wrote:
and gay men shouldn't be inherently considered as sex crazed maniacs. Look your comparisons are stupid.
/sigh, just because you fail at the comprehension of comparisons, doesn't mean that my comparison failed. The argument was being made that if a man is being viewed as eye candy, then he should just take it. I countered to say that a woman, who joined under the same scenario, shouldn't have to take it. So, why should a man?
You response doesn't even address the comparison.
In any case, I never said that they were sex crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a
"special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it?
RDD wrote:
The only thing that matters that you still have not answered in a way that makes you sound like a Bigot, a Homophobe, or whatever cute little label you want to put on being a general douche is:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.
RDD wrote:
Gays currently serve in the military, there is currently no issue with them being in the military. The only reason you could have an issue is with them being allowed to come out and say they are gay. So Are you against open gays in the military, or not. That is the only question that matters because it is the only thing that has changed.
Either you are cool with them being there. Or you aren't its a simple Yes, or No.
If you are against them being open, you are a bigot, if you are not, then why is there 9 pages of drivel about it.
You my friend, are an idiot. I'm not against open homosexuals in the military (after revisions of the rules) I'm against open homosexuals in open showers or in close living quarters with people who feel the same discomfort as women do with men. I don't care about in the work place because their sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to perform their job. I've said this from the beginning. Why you are pretending that I haven't is evident that you haven't been paying attention. That's why there are 9 pages in this thread.
So that doesn't make me a bigot,homophobe or any other made up nonvalue word you use because I don't care if SGT so and so is gay, I just don't want to shower with him.
This is why I told Belkira that this isn't based on anatomy because if it were, then it would be the same way clothed or naked. It isn't consistent so it isn't about anatomy. Same way with me. If a person had a feeling with homosexuals clothed and naked, then there's a
chance of homophobia.
not saying that it is or isn't If you only have a problem in the showers, then it isn't consistent,just like the anatomy argument, and therefor it's less likely about homophobia more likely about comfort.
Kachi wrote:
No, as I have already pointed out, we are also generally brought up taught that our same sex immediate family can see us nude, and then that the same sex 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 sex.
That's family, not strangers. We are taught that it's ok within the same sex of our family. Then that changes rather quickly as you grow up into preteens and teenagers when you get your own room and stop changing and bathing with your siblings. So, by the time you're old enough to realize what bodies are, you have become more private with your body. So when you're placed in an open environment to be naked in front of others, it is a major change, especially if you have never been exposed to that at an early age like in sports or something. People in general still feel less comfortable changing in front of strangers.
Kachi wrote:
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).
As I've already pointed out at least twice that in the case of women, it's based off of prejudice because you're assuming that a man would attack you. What difference does it matter of the physical advantage if the person shows no sign of aggression? "Well he's so much bigger than me, so I'll know he'll just might try to rape me". That's like the special teams kicker being afraid to shower with the defensive line because they have a physical size advantage. That's stupid. If the lineman doesn't show any signs of aggression, then it doesn't matter how big he is.
Do you need a study to prove that no one wants to be raped? The definition of the word means against own's will. As with the jail, what difference does it make on the sexuality, if you're getting butt raped? How is it not about sexuality? A guy needs to get a nut off, he sees a man that he can overtake and wants and rapes him. Sounds like sexuality to me.
Kachi wrote:
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.
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral sex is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.
Read what I said earlier in this post. What difference does the size advantage matters if there is no malicious intent? You (or the woman) is making an assumption that something will happen when there is no evidence of anything happening. Prejudice.
Kachi wrote:
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 gay, and women grouped together, even gay. We pretty much already have those figures, considering that as others have pointed out, gay 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.
Please quit then, because you aren't moving this anywhere forward.
I'm not denying statistics. What I'm telling you, statistics or not, there is nothing to say that the person next to you will do anything. The person psychologically creates a discomfort zone of "what if's". What you and others have done is accepted this type of behavior in one scenario and rejected it in another scenario.
We've gotten off track into only focusing on physical attacks, but what about the uncomfortable feeling of being "checked out" while naked? Size doesn't come into play there (well it does, but a different type of size bom-bom tish). Women express this as well. What's the justification for this?
The bottom line is that this "fear" that women have is self made not based on any evidence to prove one way or the other and we accept it. We accept it based on the psychological factor involved. The separation of men and women is logical based on that. My point is that you can't go around calling men homophobes and bigots for having the same exact feelings as women. That may not justify the practicality of an additional separation, but it does justify the cease of ignorance.
