Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Yea, not quite. One has a much higher chance of actually occurring. To a point where you can assume it is happening.

There's a difference in being attracted to a person's body vs being attracted to their personality. It is possible for a person to be physically attracted to a person, but think that person is a jerk. Likewise, it is also possible to not be physically attracted to a person while being attracted to a person's personality. So, it's impossible to be attracted to a stranger's physical body through their unknown personality.



I said from the beginning that they were the same as women.



Yea, you're right, besides completely unrealistic, it's negative. People only say "not comfortable with their sexuality" as a negative attack to people. I'm completely confident in my sexuality, but that doesn't mean I want to go in Gay Bars or shower with homosexuals.

But, let's play your game. Let us pretend that actually happens in people. That is no different than a woman being confused with her sexuality. She doesn't want to shower with men because she isn't sure if she's attracted to females or males. Or even better yet, there are plenty of women who believe that women should be modest (even as you claimed) and any woman who freely exposes herself to men has no class and is a *****-monger. So, she wants to hide her body from men to prevent others thinking that she is a trollop, sleaze, ho, *****, *****, sperm-dumpster or a chicken head, because she isn't confident in her sexuality.



Uh, this is the issue of someone checking you out, which is no different than women not wanting men to check them out. Same exact thing. A man having a small junk will be ridiculed by men and women. This is no different than women being ashamed of someone ridiculing her for her breast or butt size. Besides, a heterosexual man is more likely to be waaay more concerned of what a woman and even a heterosexual man thinks about their ***** size over what a homosexual thinks. "I sure hope John likes my ***** size", is not something a heterosexual man is probably thinking.



Putting the generalization aside, regardless if it's out of fear, hatred, anger or modesty. Women don't want to be checked out by men in the shower. Men don't want to be checked out by men in the shower. There is no difference. That's the problem, when a guy, like me, says "I don't want to shower with a homosexual", I don't get the "modesty" option. All people see is "He doesn't want to be checked out by a man, he's a bigot". That's why I ask, "how is that any different than a woman who doesn't want to be checked out by a man".

People(see, I replaced "y'all", just for you) like to call people bigots in order to scare them into their way of thinking. Kind of like TERRORISM!!! >.>

Besides, the disgust of homosexuality does not necessarily have anything to do with not wanting to be checked out in the shower. I think two men engaged in attraction or sexual encounters is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I can't talk to them or be around them. I realize that people are different. I know posters are going quote "see, the truth is out, you're a bigot, blah, blah", which ironically would just further prove my point. The reality is, I find incest, child molestation, *****/urination during sex, etc. far more disgusting and my comfort levels with them in the shower can/will vary. So, this has less to do with disgust and more to do with "being checked out in the showers", which is the exact same issue that women are expressing.



Crap, you're finally right in something. I feel suicidal...

In any case, I was wrong in the scenario, but I better explained my concept at the top of this post.



/thread

Honestly.. This.. Some people may have legitimate reasons, but the most of the posters here are acting like bigots, calling other people bigots.



I think you failed to grasp the concept at hand. My argument is that not every male who is against open sexuality in the military, i.e. open showers, are bigots. To show this, I made the comparison that this is no different than what women express about men. The fact that no one person is attracted to everyone only substantiates my point that there is no reason why men and women aren't sharing showers other than for the same reasons why men don't want to share showers with men.



So, you're ok with sharing open showers with men since you're all grown up? There's a big difference with someone checking you out with clothes on vs being naked.



This.. People have implied/said that homosexuals only check out homosexuals and that is just plain silly.

[quote=Majivo]
Everything? What, did you just completely fail to understand the scenario? If you break the rules, or there are allegations that you broke the rules, you get investigated. Attempting to take matters into your own hands because someone looked at you sexually is over the line.[/quote]

Oh, I see what you two were getting at. I was thinking of something completely different. I was thinking more of an assault type scenario, where people would just react.

I wouldn't say "lucky"...

As I told Mojivo, for some reason I was thinking more along an assault. In any case, we have people specifically trained to handle those scenarios. For the sake of quality and conflict of interest, many times it's best to talk to them.



For the millionth time, this is a psychological issue of KNOWING that there is an enhanced probability of someone checking you out, not the fear of being attacked. The same "enhanced probability" that women have with sharing showers with men.



1) In a general sense, physical traits such as skin color don't tell you anything about the person, while personality traits do. So, the likelihood of you having a legitimate discomfort of black men is quite low as you know nothing about Jon Smith.

2) In a specific sense, we're talking about discomfort of the possibility of being checked out in showers or in beds. Heterosexual black men aren't checking you out in the showers, only homosexual black men.



I've told you, ironically, your bigotry doesn't allow you to see it. The uncomfortable feeling derives with being exposed to someone who might be attracted to you, the same feeling that women express towards men. Do you label them bigots?



That's like saying "You're allowed to beat your wife, you're just not allowed to know who is". That's incredibly stupid. Once again, there is a difference between being physically able to join the military and being authorized to join the military. Just as they don't ask if you beat your wife, DADT stopped recruiters from asking if you're gay. In neither case does it authorize you to be either. So, it is indeed a different situation.

Just for fun, that's like movie hoping in a theater, yes you can do it, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.

Well, it was a step forward from asking "Are you a ****? Get the hell out". Gbaji really had his panties knotted over some asinine belief that, since people wanted to repeal DADT, this meant that everyone believed that DADT was the origin of prohibiting gays in the military (you know, 'cause we all thought you could be openly gay in WWII without an issue and stuff) and then went further down Idiot Creek when he declared that a DADT repeal would mean that now gays couldn't serve at all.

see sig.

i got to thank every one who has posted in this thread, for the entertainment it has provided me each time I visited the Asylum the last few weeks.

Since so many of you have been talking about showers and being nude around other people of different sexes, I decided to add an different perspective to the thread. That of an Artist who grew up to become comfortable working with nude models and being nude around people of both sexes. For over ten years now I have been attending clothing optional events, where people know that any sexual harassment will get them banned. These events allow us to wear as little or no clothing as we want without fear of constantly having to deal with others of the opposite and or same sex, sexual advances. So for me, all the argument about wither someone is comfortable taking showers with in a semi-public area seem very silly.


I have no problem being nude around other people who know how to behave, as one would if I was dressed completely to the point of you only seeing my eyes. Still I know many people are uncomfortable exposing any part of their body covered by their underwear. What gets me is areas of the USA were any Nude Art is look as indecent. Having gone to Art galleries throughout my childhood, I thought anyone who feels the need to giggle as we walked by a Nude during a class field trip, as immature.

(An unnecessary real life situation) Yet when a friend came up to visit me with this wife and 5 year old son, I had to allow for the fact that the parents were not comfortable with their son seeing Nudes in an Art Museum. People it's like the difference between a family that shows how to enjoy an good wine or beer with a meal and not become a drunken fool. Children learn either the human nude is a thing of beauty or ****, from how their parents react to the images that can easily be seen in public build-boards now. Once I explain that trying to hide the human nudes from the child would only make him wonder what all the fuss was about, they stopped trying to cover his eyes when we pasted any artwork with even a small amount of nudity in it. It was only when we came to the African exhibit in the Smithsonian that he had any questions about why two statues of a man and woman had large reproductive organs. I explain how the statues were to show the importance that people had about being Fertile and able to have healthy children for the good of the tribe, in language he understood. His reaction was of a five year old, making sense of why parents feel having children is important and wanted. (Okay I'm done with talking about my giving a tour of the National Museum of Art to a bunch of southern rednecks.)

It's how most American are raised and one of the things working in Admissions at a Major Art College you learn early on, that both the students and their parents have to be faced with, before they decide on attending the College. One of the first things a work study student learns, is that when giving prospective students and their parents tours of the College, you must walk them into at least one class where there is a nude model working. I always enjoyed the watching their faces as they walked into the classroom. for many families it was the moment of truth of the fact, that Art Students need to take Life Drawing classes, no matter what their major they were going for at MICA. for as artists we are expected and taught to look at the body as a subject of study, and not as an sexual object for ones lust. (Redneck families were always good for some laughs later.) When you are raised to not always think about nudity equals sexuality, all this talk of comfort levels of people having to take a showers in public seems silly.

In other words, Just Get Over Your Idea That Seeing a Person in the Nude is a Chance to Make Out with Them.

first edit to correct the difference between spelling of two and too.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 5:14am by ElneClare

No. My whole point was about the use of the word "repeal" when that wasn't really what was going on.


It had nothing at all to do with the legal changes and everything to do with how they were presented to the public. Call it an observation on human nature. The psychology of political linguistics. Whatever floats your boat.

I'm naive? A group of people who want to repeal DADT, with the capability of repealing it in a short time, willingly takes their time? That doesn't even make any sense.



My point is that one group is much more knowledgeable on how the military operates than the other. So, if I had to choose who was more accurate in their judgment, I would go with the group of people that are more knowledgeable on military operations.

The level of politics wasn't the point, it was the level of military knowledge. The "real politicians" in question have less military knowledge than the "politicians" that are currently serving in the military. I'm not quite sure how you missed that.



Wow, you're not expressing any understanding on how the military works. Showering is only an issue during training and in the field. In garrison , you're more than likely not forced to shower with anyone, but probably forced to room with someone. This is where the argument against sharing a room with a homosexual comes into play. So, putting aside your completely made up 5% of gay Soliders, you DO NOT shower with anyone during garrison. This is why the argument "you already shower with them" fails. Even if you did, SGT Johnson, who just came to the unit, never showered with gay SGT Thomas before. So, you can't say "You showered with him before, because he hasn't.



My argument is that they are the same concept, yet people make a difference, calling one group negative terms.



The problem is it isn't "routine". As I stated above, Soldiers only share showers in the field or in training environments.



Barely? One is based on known personality information, the other is based on a physical trait. The two aren't even close. The concern is with privacy of sexuality, not discomfort of a person. Like I said, a person can HATE homosexuals or heterosexuals, but that hatred has no relation to the discomfort of not wanting to be checked out.



I never said "barely", because they are the same. I responded to your upbringing argument and countered it. You were the one who never replied to it.

"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. "



The concept is the exact same. You are not allowed to do something and you do it anyway hoping not to get caught. The concept of DADT goes beyond sexuality in the military, it's a universal concept. In the military, there are many things that are not authorized, i.e. fraternization, adultery, oral/**** sex, that many people do but aren't caught. Just because you aren't asked if you're participating in these activities, that doesn't mean that you're now "magically" allowed to do them. If you were allowed, then you wouldn't be punished upon getting caught.



Read above. That's false. Homosexuality is not authorized in the military, the military just chose to stop asking if you were gay or not. This ENABLED homosexuals to join without lying.

Oh, I know that's what you were on about. It was too stupid an argument to forget. "What this country needs isn't a repeal of DADT... what this country needs is a pedantic history lesson!"



Huh? Sexuality is not personality information, but I guess that's really beside the point. As has been pointed out to you, I don't know, a million times, gays are already sharing facilities with straights and checking them out. Most of them have been since middle school. Anxiety about being checked out by gays... You do realize that that's what homophobia is, don't you? It's not necessarily about hating them.

Well, it's good that you can admit that it is about homophobia afterall.



Ok, fine, I was paraphrasing your argument. Though I'm surprised to learn that you think that not wanting to shower with blacks out of discomfort is as legitimate as not wanting to shower with gays out of discomfort. I'm pretty sure you've actually just lost grasp of the argument.

Anyway, I already addressed the argument of your rebuttal. We ARE socialized, from a young age, and then again in adolescence, to be seen by the same gender, but not the other. Your point was somewhere between wrong and stupid.



You're an idiot if you believe this. This is not, "Everything is legal if you don't get caught." This is, "Our policy is not to inquire about homosexuality and do not advertise homosexuality in any way."

Homosexuals are allowed in the military. They are simply not allowed to let anyone know about it.

probably.