by ebran4 May 25, 2010 6:10 PM EDT Most European countries have coed showers and saunas at gyms and spas. Many dorms are coed. It's not such a big deal to a lot of the world. Again, sexual antagonism of this sort is very american
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In your dreams,I've been to europe a lot and there's no such thing as coed showers anywhere, not even in France.
You could also look up nude beaches. I find it hard to believe you've been to Europe a lot. If so, you sheltered yourself pretty well. Congratulations on your remarkable insularity.
I'm of Finnish descent. I grew up with a large extended family in the same hometown. My grandparents had a huge wood-fired sauna -- separate building from the house. I can attest that they are co-ed and...multi-generational. I still have bad dreams. (Kidding on the last sentence).
No it doesn't solve the problem. Then you have the gays feeling preyed upon or being sexually harassed by the straights. You have to think of everyones rights in this issue. The only way is to either exclude one side or have one side hide their true sexuality so as not to offend the other. The answer, And I really hate to admit it, Is "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
Don't ask is an evil policy. If adults in the military can't act like adults, then we have a far bigger problem than gay Americans. If these folks have that little discipline and decency in our military, then we are in deep doo. We heard the same arguments about blacks serving with whites, men serving with women, etc. There were some problems at first but those were sorted out and our military is better for it.
I wonder how you figure that. They can't get married in 85% of the country so they don't get the tax breaks us straight couples get. It is illegal to discriminate against them (like it is on basis of race and religion), but it isn't well enforced. There are many places that don't pursue crimes against gay people (despite it being required by Federal law). And, as is the topic here, they can serve in the military, but they must keep the fact that they are gay secret or they get fired. Are those the rights you're jealous of?
Our wonderfull military leadership just decided to ban smoking on submarines and also to add women to the crews. This is quite a bit to take for sailors who form an elite unit which is almost like a brotherhood. If they start allowing gays as well that would make everyone happy. There will be someone for everyone. Three months under the sea in a tube drilling holes in the ocean. Patrols will probably be much more exciting now than when I did them in the 70s. All we had was cards, movies and silly games to keep us sane.
Remeber during WWI and WWII when the Army formed all Black units? Maybe its time to give the Gays the a chance the same way. Imagine a Navy Rainbow attack sub. The elite Army Rainbow Raiders who proudly wear their pink and yellow berets. It'll give another meaning to "Got your Back".
They should have the expectation not to be thought of as prey. I doubt they would be thought of as prey. I just think that they imagine they would be thought of as prey, because they think of women that way. It is not immature to be offended by certain forms of unwanted attention by another person. Women in the US are reasonably offended by unwanted attention by other persons on a regular basis. Again, though, the problem is the mindset of the heterosexual men. No one is trying to force homosexuality on anyone. We are just asking heterosexual men to get over their issues and live and work cooperatively with others. I'm offensive to non-gay males in this instance because they are aggressive in excluding others when the people with the issues are them, not the others. Until they can cooperate, they shouldn't participate; again, they are the problem here. Why should others be excluded because of their psychological issues?
If you force persons into a situation where they perform personal maintenance and hygienic personal functions as a group, you should guarantee them freedom from sexual harrassment to the best of your ability. Unwanted viewing of a person by another in a sexual manner is sexual harassment. Ask yor jobs' personnel dept.
It isn't just men but women also. Would you want to be a woman trapped on an aircraft carrier with a bunkmate that sees you as a sexual object. Why can't gays see that unwanted attention is offensive and in this situation, unavoidable for the one offended.
Of course, everyone should be guaranteed freedom from sexual harassment. The most common practitioners are heterosexual men. They should be sent away until they learn how to cooperate.
Good question: why can't guys see that unwanted attention is offensive?
Also, I hardly think that "unwanted viewing in a sexual manner" is anywhere near clear enough to make it into any HR policy that's been reviewed by an attorney.
It looks like a 'sucker punch' by the White House to try to hang onto the gay voting block WITHOUT actually having to do it!
Look! If Obama REALLY wanted to do this, he'd do it through executive order either as President or Commander-in-Chief!
Then, Pelosi & Reid would simultaneously get it passed through their respective Houses, and it would be policy!
They're doing it this way, to squeeze out gay votes in November, then in December or January, they'll announce that it can't be implemented at this time!
I think the problem is that most US men have a very warped idea of human sexuality. They themselves have been trained in our culture to think of sex as a predator/prey-based activity in which men are the predator and women the prey. They are thus frightened of a circumstance in which they envision becoming the prey of other men. Men in other cultures are more mature and comfortable with sexuality so don't feel so threatened by gay men. So their heterosexual men can function without difficulty in a mixed unit. American men are so predatory that mixed male/female and hetero/homosexual combat units probably will be a problem. But the people who need to change are the American heterosexual men. They are the problem. Perhaps they should not be permitted to serve until they get over their issues and can cooperate.
Shouldn't they have the expectation not to have to be thought of as prey. Why would it be immature to be offended by unwanted attention from another person? Why are other cultures and countries so much more sophisticated by your standards? If being gay is not a choice, and being htereo is not a choice, why are you trying to force homosexuality on people who obviously have no choice but not to be. Why must you be so offensive to non-gays and hide behind enlightenment and tolerance?
I'm unable to figure out how to cascade reply, so this is a reply to Brokennews:
>>Name a country where a woman can walk into the Men's shower & feel comfortable & not feel threatened?
Most European countries have coed showers and saunas at gyms and spas. Many dorms are coed. It's not such a big deal to a lot of the world. Again, sexual antagonism of this sort is very american.
Considering that all of our brave military personnel are adults. That they all know basic biology. That they know the differences between the anatomies of male and female. If sexual preference is not a factor any more in separating those who may have sexual feelings toward another person. What is the difference between someone being ogled in a lustful manner in the shower by a member of an opposite gender than by someone of the same gender? Inthe interest of true non-discrimination, shouldn't we just go ahead and mix the genders. Otherwise it is all just hypocrisy. The deal is that if you allow this, then you are really discriminating against all non-gays on the basis of sexual preference and ignoring peoples expectation of privacy in private situations. I am not talking about on the field of battle, but, in the barracks. This would be saying that gays are above all others in that they would never look upon another in an untoward way without invitation. That they have some special level of conscience above all other sexual preferences. I don't believe it.
Perish1- you see, in all the nations that allow gays to serve openly, this has never been raised as an issue. By all means, your right to not be oogled should always trump a gay's right to serve and not fear being fired if they're discovered to be gay. And I seriously doubt anyone, male or female, would want to oogle you.
My argument is predicated on the equality of all persons involved. there is no anger or fear, just the idea that others should be considered in this equation. A woman who wouldn't want a man looking upon her in a sexually interested manner at times of various undress or hygienic maintenance, why is it beyond reason to expect that she wouldn't want another woman to see her as such. Whether happening or not doesn't she have the same expectation of privacy that she would be given from the opposite gender?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Most European countries have coed showers and saunas at gyms and spas. Many dorms are coed. It's not such a big deal to a lot of the world. Again, sexual antagonism of this sort is very american
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In your dreams,I've been to europe a lot and there's no such thing as coed showers anywhere, not even in France.
Problem solved.
No one is trying to force homosexuality on anyone. We are just asking heterosexual men to get over their issues and live and work cooperatively with others. I'm offensive to non-gay males in this instance because they are aggressive in excluding others when the people with the issues are them, not the others. Until they can cooperate, they shouldn't participate; again, they are the problem here. Why should others be excluded because of their psychological issues?
Also, I hardly think that "unwanted viewing in a sexual manner" is anywhere near clear enough to make it into any HR policy that's been reviewed by an attorney.
Look! If Obama REALLY wanted to do this, he'd do it through executive order either as President or Commander-in-Chief!
Then, Pelosi & Reid would simultaneously get it passed through their respective Houses, and it would be policy!
They're doing it this way, to squeeze out gay votes in November, then in December or January, they'll announce that it can't be implemented at this time!
Watch and see!
>>Name a country where a woman can walk into the Men's shower & feel comfortable & not feel threatened?
Most European countries have coed showers and saunas at gyms and spas. Many dorms are coed. It's not such a big deal to a lot of the world. Again, sexual antagonism of this sort is very american.
The deal is that if you allow this, then you are really discriminating against all non-gays on the basis of sexual preference and ignoring peoples expectation of privacy in private situations. I am not talking about on the field of battle, but, in the barracks. This would be saying that gays are above all others in that they would never look upon another in an untoward way without invitation. That they have some special level of conscience above all other sexual preferences. I don't believe it.