100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Agenda - moves forward | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) Then, women would be makin' more than the men. What with having to pay child support and all. 
But then, this is supposed to be about the other team. They can't make babies if all they can do is munch carpet or cruise the old Hershey Highway. So, no child support for them! 
didnt even have to go there,,,smh Im just saying if we are going to trust people not to act on their attractions and trust others to 'just' turn down those offers that make them uncomfortable,, there is no reason to bunk males and females in seperate quarters,,,,trust them all the way,,, Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world. Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it<  !
I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember? 
doesnt matter, they are military, they should be able to handle it, they need to get over it and do their job,,,,( I think thats how the argument goes anyhow) But, if they get caught handling it, they could get in trouble. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) Then, women would be makin' more than the men. What with having to pay child support and all.
But then, this is supposed to be about the other team. They can't make babies if all they can do is munch carpet or cruise the old Hershey Highway. So, no child support for them!
didnt even have to go there,,,smh Im just saying if we are going to trust people not to act on their attractions and trust others to 'just' turn down those offers that make them uncomfortable,, there is no reason to bunk males and females in seperate quarters,,,,trust them all the way,,, Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world. Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< !
I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember?
doesnt matter, they are military, they should be able to handle it, they need to get over it and do their job,,,,( I think thats how the argument goes anyhow) But, if they get caught handling it, they could get in trouble.
do they kick you out of the service for that? will homosexual bunkmates who become involved be permitted to carry on their relationship in baracks or showers?,,,hmm,,,interesting potential issues,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) Then, women would be makin' more than the men. What with having to pay child support and all.
But then, this is supposed to be about the other team. They can't make babies if all they can do is munch carpet or cruise the old Hershey Highway. So, no child support for them!
didnt even have to go there,,,smh Im just saying if we are going to trust people not to act on their attractions and trust others to 'just' turn down those offers that make them uncomfortable,, there is no reason to bunk males and females in seperate quarters,,,,trust them all the way,,, Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world. Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< !
I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember?
doesnt matter, they are military, they should be able to handle it, they need to get over it and do their job,,,,( I think thats how the argument goes anyhow) But, if they get caught handling it, they could get in trouble.
do they kick you out of the service for that? will homosexual bunkmates who become involved be permitted to carry on their relationship in baracks or showers?,,,hmm,,,interesting potential issues,,, Don't know. But, with all them hot, willing gals around, it'd be a shame for him to give his lil' soldier a dishonorable discharge. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) Then, women would be makin' more than the men. What with having to pay child support and all.
But then, this is supposed to be about the other team. They can't make babies if all they can do is munch carpet or cruise the old Hershey Highway. So, no child support for them!
didnt even have to go there,,,smh Im just saying if we are going to trust people not to act on their attractions and trust others to 'just' turn down those offers that make them uncomfortable,, there is no reason to bunk males and females in seperate quarters,,,,trust them all the way,,, Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world. Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< !
I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember?
doesnt matter, they are military, they should be able to handle it, they need to get over it and do their job,,,,( I think thats how the argument goes anyhow) But, if they get caught handling it, they could get in trouble.
do they kick you out of the service for that? will homosexual bunkmates who become involved be permitted to carry on their relationship in baracks or showers?,,,hmm,,,interesting potential issues,,, Don't know. But, with all them hot, willing gals around, it'd be a shame for him to give his lil' soldier a dishonorable discharge.
ok,,,back on topic lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Dear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) I am not totally against that in theory. In Japan many of their public restrooms are unisexual. You enter and find sinks and mirrors and a corridor. On one side of the corridor are urinals - yep right there in the open. On the opposite side are stalls with no doors. You see, in Japan the culture presumes that modesty prevails. That men and women will traverse the corridor with eyes down looking for a spot with no feet. Men are facing away from the stall, so there is nothing to see and women (and men) use the stalls without fear of voyeurism or any other physical or aggressive invasive acts. Of course we are not Japanese and inherent in our enculturation are flaws which shape our unconscious attitudes toward gender. Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender. Men think like men and function like men no matter what gender preference they exhibit. There are numerous psychological studies about attraction and how it works and it works the same for men and women regardless of sexual orientation. If a heterosexual man fears the sexual advances of another man, we have to wonder why they would have that fear. It is most likely part of the enculturation that accepts men in our society as aggressors, ‘expected’ to continue advancing even in the face a flat out “I’m not interested?” But as I state before, the majority of gay men are not interested in pursuing a man with no interest, especially a heterosexual man for the exact same reason – they fear an aggressive and violent retribution. So there are logical and adequate reasons to separate the sexes but the only reason to consider separating by sexual orientation is fear induced bigotry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) I am not totally against that in theory. In Japan many of their public restrooms are unisexual. You enter and find sinks and mirrors and a corridor. On one side of the corridor are urinals - yep right there in the open. On the opposite side are stalls with no doors. You see, in Japan the culture presumes that modesty prevails. That men and women will traverse the corridor with eyes down looking for a spot with no feet. Men are facing away from the stall, so there is nothing to see and women (and men) use the stalls without fear of voyeurism or any other physical or aggressive invasive acts. Of course we are not Japanese and inherent in our enculturation are flaws which shape our unconscious attitudes toward gender. Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender. Men think like men and function like men no matter what gender preference they exhibit. There are numerous psychological studies about attraction and how it works and it works the same for men and women regardless of sexual orientation. If a heterosexual man fears the sexual advances of another man, we have to wonder why they would have that fear. It is most likely part of the enculturation that accepts men in our society as aggressors, ‘expected’ to continue advancing even in the face a flat out “I’m not interested?” But as I state before, the majority of gay men are not interested in pursuing a man with no interest, especially a heterosexual man for the exact same reason – they fear an aggressive and violent retribution. So there are logical and adequate reasons to separate the sexes but the only reason to consider separating by sexual orientation is fear induced bigotry. there are alot of assumptions here that I disagree with,, for instance 'However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender ' if a man is attracted to a man,, the same hormones work as a heterosexual attracted to women,,,,so I fail to see the difference in a homosexual man in the presence of a man they find attractive,, or a heterosexual man in the presence of a woman they find attractive. and 'Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. ' this is the same reason heterosexuals bunking with homosexuals is a bad idea,,,its an issue of privacy, not being watched in any inappropriate or viewed in any sexual manner,,,,which would be difficult for a straight man to do in the presence of an attractive female and just as difficult for a homosexual male to do in the presence of an attractive male |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 05/29/10 08:13 PM
|
|
All good and all but you are missing the biggest issue of all.
MOST OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE gay folks have been bunking, peeing, sleeping, eating, living with heterosexuals all along. So to discuss how it shouldn't be happening is ludicrous as it has and will continue. You cannot always spot a gay person on sight ya know 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 05/29/10 08:16 PM
|
|
Im just saying if we are going to trust people not to act on their attractions and trust others to 'just' turn down those offers that make them uncomfortable,, there is no reason to bunk males and females in seperate quarters,,,,trust them all the way,,,
As I said, I am not against this idea and given the right kind of society and enculturation it would work fine, but we are not talking about simple acts of discrimination when we discuss the model of our societal gender appreciation. When we talk about the battle of the sexes and make comments like "men (women) can't live with them, can't live without them" we are presenting an attitute of mutual gender quality acceptance. In other words, society influences what we believe to be natural tendancies which stem from gender roles and our acceptance of gender behavior. The term used when questioning why and how these differences exist is nature vs nurture. Are we different because of nature of different because of nurture? Does biology or society have the greater influence. While many studies have attempted to answer that question, we have been unable to change the direction of our societal views because our gender beliefs are so firmly rooted in conceptions that have been molded through thousands of years. This is not true of gender orientation, because it is accepted that gender orientation does not preclude how we have been enculturated. Both gay and straight people grow up with the same gender concepts. So attempting to justify male and female cohabitation to male and gay or female and lesbian cohabitation is simply not the same thing at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world.
Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< ! I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember? msharmony Please let the above exemplify what I've been trying to say. We make those kinds of comments in an off-handed way, but the truth is, in our society, we really believe (both men and women) that men are biologically volitile and that testosterone is a reason for aggression. This is neither sound logic, nor is it biologically accurate. Yet we, as men and women, have a societal agreement that men can and should be aggressors and protectors and we get that because men have always told us so. But that goes beyond my point. It was just my intension to have a good discussion and explain why some things that seem similar or logical have conditions which set them far apart. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) Then, women would be makin' more than the men. What with having to pay child support and all.
But then, this is supposed to be about the other team. They can't make babies if all they can do is munch carpet or cruise the old Hershey Highway. So, no child support for them!
didnt even have to go there,,,smh Im just saying if we are going to trust people not to act on their attractions and trust others to 'just' turn down those offers that make them uncomfortable,, there is no reason to bunk males and females in seperate quarters,,,,trust them all the way,,, Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world. Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< !
I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember?
doesnt matter, they are military, they should be able to handle it, they need to get over it and do their job,,,,( I think thats how the argument goes anyhow) No, that's the argument for gay and straights and for a different cultural perspective as well. But for male and female there are far extenuating circumstances which are as old as recorded history. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) Then, women would be makin' more than the men. What with having to pay child support and all.
But then, this is supposed to be about the other team. They can't make babies if all they can do is munch carpet or cruise the old Hershey Highway. So, no child support for them!
didnt even have to go there,,,smh Im just saying if we are going to trust people not to act on their attractions and trust others to 'just' turn down those offers that make them uncomfortable,, there is no reason to bunk males and females in seperate quarters,,,,trust them all the way,,, Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world. Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< !
I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember?
doesnt matter, they are military, they should be able to handle it, they need to get over it and do their job,,,,( I think thats how the argument goes anyhow) But, if they get caught handling it, they could get in trouble.
do they kick you out of the service for that? will homosexual bunkmates who become involved be permitted to carry on their relationship in baracks or showers?,,,hmm,,,interesting potential issues,,, Some people believe we choose whom we love, and some believe in soul mates and still others believe there are psychological or even biological mechanisms which determine whom we fall in love with. But you speak of grown men and women who are going through the toughest training and physical ordeals of their life as if they have all the time in the world to give thought or attention to these sexual matters. Even if two men or women should find an inevitable attraction for each other, do you suppose it would work out any differntly than for a man and woman in the same unit? I know at least three women who met their husbands in service and were pregnant before they married. Do you really think they had sex in the barracks???? Hell, I'd kick them out myself - sex is a ready made tension reducer, if you are the one NOT getting it, you sure as hell don't want to be listening to it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know. But, with all them hot, willing gals around, it'd be a shame for him to give his lil' soldier a dishonorable discharge
You see, this is our society, women laugh those kinds of comments of, that's just the way men are. But is it really? They think so, but do women really think so or do we feel inadequit to the challenge of changing society and so we just put up with it and in so doing we feed that ego which turns around and dictates to society what a man is and how a man should act. We are but one society, and many other societeis prove that our gender views are not accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 05/29/10 09:47 PM
|
|
I am not totally against that in theory. In Japan many of their public restrooms are unisexual. You enter and find sinks and mirrors and a corridor. On one side of the corridor are urinals - yep right there in the open. On the opposite side are stalls with no doors. You see, in Japan the culture presumes that modesty prevails. That men and women will traverse the corridor with eyes down looking for a spot with no feet. Men are facing away from the stall, so there is nothing to see and women (and men) use the stalls without fear of voyeurism or any other physical or aggressive invasive acts. Of course we are not Japanese and inherent in our enculturation are flaws which shape our unconscious attitudes toward gender. Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender. Men think like men and function like men no matter what gender preference they exhibit. There are numerous psychological studies about attraction and how it works and it works the same for men and women regardless of sexual orientation. If a heterosexual man fears the sexual advances of another man, we have to wonder why they would have that fear. It is most likely part of the enculturation that accepts men in our society as aggressors, ‘expected’ to continue advancing even in the face a flat out “I’m not interested?” But as I state before, the majority of gay men are not interested in pursuing a man with no interest, especially a heterosexual man for the exact same reason – they fear an aggressive and violent retribution. So there are logical and adequate reasons to separate the sexes but the only reason to consider separating by sexual orientation is fear induced bigotry. there are alot of assumptions here that I disagree with,, for instance 'However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender '
if a man is attracted to a man,, the same hormones work as a heterosexual attracted to women,,,,so I fail to see the difference in a homosexual man in the presence of a man they find attractive,, or a heterosexual man in the presence of a woman they find attractive. and 'Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. ' this is the same reason heterosexuals bunking with homosexuals is a bad idea,,,its an issue of privacy, not being watched in any inappropriate or viewed in any sexual manner,,,,which would be difficult for a straight man to do in the presence of an attractive female and just as difficult for a homosexual male to do in the presence of an attractive male there are alot of assumptions here that I disagree with,, for instance 'However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender ' <<<<<<
if a man is attracted to a man,, the same hormones work as a heterosexual attracted to women,,,,so I fail to see the difference in a homosexual man in the presence of a man they find attractive,, or a heterosexual man in the presence of a woman they find attractive. I don’t understand your thought process here. What is it exactly that you think hormones to a man who is attracted to a woman? And what is it you would expect of a man who found himself attracted to you? What behavior or actions do you think would make you so uncomfortable that you would not want to be in the same room with that man ever? [and >>>>>>'Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. ' <<<<<< this is the same reason heterosexuals bunking with homosexuals is a bad idea,,,its an issue of privacy, not being watched in any inappropriate or viewed in any sexual manner,,,,which would be difficult for a straight man to do in the presence of an attractive female and just as difficult for a homosexual male to do in the presence of an attractive male
The privacy I was discussing was more along the lines of tampon and pad usage and those monthly accidents that occur, and keeping that runway clean shaven or giggling with the girls about some new dildo. And the guys who feel their masculinity requires them to boast about their conquests or to masterbate in the bathroom and of those wet dreams men are prone to have. We all have needs and men understand men things and women understand women things and gender orientation does not change those things or those understandings. What is it that you think will change by gays and lesbians serving openly? Do you think every gay man is going to wear a pick ribbon to declare his gaydom or somehow feel more free to grope or eye a straight man? You see, I don’t understand what you think would be different in the barracks if DADT is repealed than before? Dragoness made the comment: MOST OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE gay folks have been bunking, peeing, sleeping, eating, living with heterosexuals all along.
What she is saying is serving openly is not about feeling entitled to impose your affection on a straight man. Throughout history gay men have served next to straight men and no one was ever the wiser, why do you think that would change? Are you so convinced that men are incapable of discretion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world.
Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< ! I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember? msharmony Please let the above exemplify what I've been trying to say. We make those kinds of comments in an off-handed way, but the truth is, in our society, we really believe (both men and women) that men are biologically volitile and that testosterone is a reason for aggression. This is neither sound logic, nor is it biologically accurate. Yet we, as men and women, have a societal agreement that men can and should be aggressors and protectors and we get that because men have always told us so. But that goes beyond my point. It was just my intension to have a good discussion and explain why some things that seem similar or logical have conditions which set them far apart. I understand,, but as a woman, I was disagreeing because I feel ANY unwanted advance can be uncomfortable , especially in closed spaces where people have to live together,,,I dont really care which gender initiates it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not totally against that in theory. In Japan many of their public restrooms are unisexual. You enter and find sinks and mirrors and a corridor. On one side of the corridor are urinals - yep right there in the open. On the opposite side are stalls with no doors. You see, in Japan the culture presumes that modesty prevails. That men and women will traverse the corridor with eyes down looking for a spot with no feet. Men are facing away from the stall, so there is nothing to see and women (and men) use the stalls without fear of voyeurism or any other physical or aggressive invasive acts. Of course we are not Japanese and inherent in our enculturation are flaws which shape our unconscious attitudes toward gender. Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender. Men think like men and function like men no matter what gender preference they exhibit. There are numerous psychological studies about attraction and how it works and it works the same for men and women regardless of sexual orientation. If a heterosexual man fears the sexual advances of another man, we have to wonder why they would have that fear. It is most likely part of the enculturation that accepts men in our society as aggressors, ‘expected’ to continue advancing even in the face a flat out “I’m not interested?” But as I state before, the majority of gay men are not interested in pursuing a man with no interest, especially a heterosexual man for the exact same reason – they fear an aggressive and violent retribution. So there are logical and adequate reasons to separate the sexes but the only reason to consider separating by sexual orientation is fear induced bigotry. there are alot of assumptions here that I disagree with,, for instance 'However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender '
if a man is attracted to a man,, the same hormones work as a heterosexual attracted to women,,,,so I fail to see the difference in a homosexual man in the presence of a man they find attractive,, or a heterosexual man in the presence of a woman they find attractive. and 'Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. ' this is the same reason heterosexuals bunking with homosexuals is a bad idea,,,its an issue of privacy, not being watched in any inappropriate or viewed in any sexual manner,,,,which would be difficult for a straight man to do in the presence of an attractive female and just as difficult for a homosexual male to do in the presence of an attractive male there are alot of assumptions here that I disagree with,, for instance 'However, men whether heterosexual or homosexual still have the same biological functions and they have the same ‘enculturated’ views of gender ' <<<<<<
if a man is attracted to a man,, the same hormones work as a heterosexual attracted to women,,,,so I fail to see the difference in a homosexual man in the presence of a man they find attractive,, or a heterosexual man in the presence of a woman they find attractive. I don’t understand your thought process here. What is it exactly that you think hormones to a man who is attracted to a woman? And what is it you would expect of a man who found himself attracted to you? What behavior or actions do you think would make you so uncomfortable that you would not want to be in the same room with that man ever? [and >>>>>>'Those attitudes along with the high regard we give to privacy in areas of our biological functions would make totally unisex barracks a bad idea. ' <<<<<< this is the same reason heterosexuals bunking with homosexuals is a bad idea,,,its an issue of privacy, not being watched in any inappropriate or viewed in any sexual manner,,,,which would be difficult for a straight man to do in the presence of an attractive female and just as difficult for a homosexual male to do in the presence of an attractive male
The privacy I was discussing was more along the lines of tampon and pad usage and those monthly accidents that occur, and keeping that runway clean shaven or giggling with the girls about some new dildo. And the guys who feel their masculinity requires them to boast about their conquests or to masterbate in the bathroom and of those wet dreams men are prone to have. We all have needs and men understand men things and women understand women things and gender orientation does not change those things or those understandings. What is it that you think will change by gays and lesbians serving openly? Do you think every gay man is going to wear a pick ribbon to declare his gaydom or somehow feel more free to grope or eye a straight man? You see, I don’t understand what you think would be different in the barracks if DADT is repealed than before? Dragoness made the comment: MOST OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE gay folks have been bunking, peeing, sleeping, eating, living with heterosexuals all along.
What she is saying is serving openly is not about feeling entitled to impose your affection on a straight man. Throughout history gay men have served next to straight men and no one was ever the wiser, why do you think that would change? Are you so convinced that men are incapable of discretion? I wouldnt want to be sleeping in the same room or showering in the same stall as a man because I dont wish to be oggled,,,, as to what would change,, I think people would be much more CARELESS about their preferences, I think more people would enroll and the bunks would have the potential to become mating grounds when some discretion is required,, people are more likely to 'behave' for fear of discharge, when you lift that fear I dont have the same faith in how people will EXPRESS themself when they feel an attraction... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world.
Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< ! I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember? msharmony Please let the above exemplify what I've been trying to say. We make those kinds of comments in an off-handed way, but the truth is, in our society, we really believe (both men and women) that men are biologically volitile and that testosterone is a reason for aggression. This is neither sound logic, nor is it biologically accurate. Yet we, as men and women, have a societal agreement that men can and should be aggressors and protectors and we get that because men have always told us so. But that goes beyond my point. It was just my intension to have a good discussion and explain why some things that seem similar or logical have conditions which set them far apart. I understand,, but as a woman, I was disagreeing because I feel ANY unwanted advance can be uncomfortable , especially in closed spaces where people have to live together,,,I dont really care which gender initiates it. My comment is right on! Why would that comment be perverted into an accusation of aggression? Rape is aggression. What I'm talkin' about is pure, young folk, animal lust. That's the fun thang and leads to all kinds of relaxation and relieving of tensions. Young straight men and women are full of both. It's not aggression that draws them together. It's lust, a natural thing. And in the confines of the bowels of a ship, the scent would be more concentrated. (As you get old, folks tend to forget what lust feels like and to get that feeling back, women take hormones and men take testosterone therapy and/or Viagra. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All good and all but you are missing the biggest issue of all. MOST OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE gay folks have been bunking, peeing, sleeping, eating, living with heterosexuals all along. So to discuss how it shouldn't be happening is ludicrous as it has and will continue. You cannot always spot a gay person on sight ya know
That is not the biggest issue to me. I dont have issue with people serving in the force. I do take issue, when our young people are bunking and showering with same sex soldiers, with allowing their same sex attractions to be openly DISPLAYED. If one can serve and keep those attractions to themself in the bed and the shower,,ignorance is bless for everyone else, if we start saying its fine to express your attraction to the same sex,, it becomes unfair for the state of mind and reasonable accomodations(showers included) to be potential 'bait'. It also opens the door for relationships between homosexuals who would serve more commonly and openly and possibly be housed and SHOWERING together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to you neocons that are against the repealling of don't ask don't tell yet say you support the troops. You're both a hypocrit and a bigot and impressingly wrong. with all due respect, my stance is not about bigotry, it is about empathy actually. I know I wouldnt want to be FORCED to live in the same quarters as men (not because of their biology, which I can handle, but because of the DISCOMFORT of potential complications arising from unwanted advances), the moment one SHARES their personal gender preference, suddenly that brush against me in the shower takes on a whole new meaning I may not have even considered before, similarly I wouldnt want to be forced to live amongst homosexual women, for the same reasons. the only way I see the fairness in this,, is , as I have said,, straight people are force to barack with opposite sex straight people as well any argument that could be used to support forcing straight people to live with same gender homosexual people,, could be used to support forcing straight people to live with opposite sex heterosexuals....it is the FORCING upon others that I oppose its not bigotry over a lifestyle choice, its consideration for the reasonable comfort of others in their sleeping accomodations. Two comments: First - The comfort of a soldier in the battlefield is not likely to be made worse by a fellow soldier sharing the experience. The barracks of a soldier are not made for comfort, they serve necessity. Secondly - if the scenarios you are referring to were prevalent enough to be worried about, history would have recorded these events with court marshalls and dismissals and any number of media hyped horror stories because homosexuals have served in great numbers in all our wars and incidents such as you have conjured up have no prevalence. It is difficult to relate to what you don't understand and what is misunderstood leads to fear. There is no more aggression (and perhaps less)in homosexual advances than in heterosexual ones. If one party is not interested it's easy enough to remedy with a simple conversation. Friendships thrive on conversation and some of the greatest friendships are forged in the heat of a battlefield. No man or woman would betray those kinds of friendships, not when you are staking your life on the person next to you. I was not referring to friendships or battle though, I was referring to FORCED sleeping arrangements. I doubt that military are any less in need of SLEEP than anyone else and with sleep being a necessity, a certain level of comfort should be expected to attain that goal. There does not need to be aggression in an advance. As I stated,, the same reason I dont want a straight female to be forced to sleep and shower with a straight male,, is the reason I dont want a straight person to be forced to sleep and shower with a same sex homosexual person. Perhaps there are other reasons why it seems as if this has not been an issue, mainly that such 'preference' has been required to be kept to oneself at risk of discharge. IF this PREFERENCE is now allowed to be OPENLY displayed,, it may become much more of an issue ... msharmony, the arrangements are not forced they are a condition of the job. The conditions exist before the applicants sign up and they really don't shoot you for deciding you want to leave if you do not like the accommodations. You keep referring to comfort as if comfort was a right troops are entitled to. That too is given up when they sign up and they certainly discover that in basic training. These men and women are being trained for war, they are being trained to experience and adapt to the most uncomfortable of situations. If men and women being trained to go to war are not capable of handling a sexual advance from a unit member how will they react in a country where they are chided relentlessly, where even little children are taught to disrespect American soldiers. You and the American people EXPECT that our soldiers are more than instruments of death, we EXPECT them to carry some semblance of American values and ethics and NOT to demonstrate the grade school mentality that cannot stand up to name-calling or a homophobic fear of bigoted adults who are incapable of deterring how to cope with a non-violent sexual advance without using violence in return. America has created this environment of false fear by allowing discrimination of homosexuals to continue for too long. We have hid in closets, we have denied who we are, we have lied and those actions allow you (the fearful heterosexuals) to have just as false a conception of safety based on some erroneous perception of segregation. We are not now nor have we ever been a segregated part of the population, except as existed through lies and denial. To change that, we must end all the laws that allow people to believe they are protected by some invisible barrier that serves to segregate us from you mainstream lives. We, as homosexuals, must come out of hiding and be conspicuous, even though we only want to be part of the whole. We are not separate we are your neighbors, we are you class mates and in schools, and gyms we shower with you and have the locker next to yours. We are your bosses, your hired help; we are your teachers, your council members, you caregivers. We are not your molesters nor are we a third sex and if the off chance occurs that one of us finds you so delightful a woman and, through misunderstanding, makes a non-violent sexual advance - then by god, have the humble nature to accept the flattery and decency to turn down the offer. The only reason you and others do not consider that easy route is most likely because- as a society, we have agreed to allow men to be so aggressive as to fear their advances. Even other men FEAR the advances of other men because they live the mentality we have accepted in our society, that masculinity requires aggression. In my opinions, homosexual males are less likely to be aggressive, logically so - consider that they live in country where they have to hide, where they often fear being found out, where the wrong move can lead to violence and the mover is highly outnumbered. LOGIC! And so the solution = end the discriminatory laws so that the fear can be faced and dispelled. thats an option too,, as I said,, if that is the standard we want to hold the military to,,,than get rid of gender recognition too and just throw EVERYONE in with each other (it would save money) Then, women would be makin' more than the men. What with having to pay child support and all.
But then, this is supposed to be about the other team. They can't make babies if all they can do is munch carpet or cruise the old Hershey Highway. So, no child support for them!
didnt even have to go there,,,smh Im just saying if we are going to trust people not to act on their attractions and trust others to 'just' turn down those offers that make them uncomfortable,, there is no reason to bunk males and females in seperate quarters,,,,trust them all the way,,, Maybe, in a neutered and spayed world. Most of 'em are young, dumb and full o' it< !
I forget what a room full of testosterone and hormones smells and feels like. Do you still remember?
doesnt matter, they are military, they should be able to handle it, they need to get over it and do their job,,,,( I think thats how the argument goes anyhow) But, if they get caught handling it, they could get in trouble.
do they kick you out of the service for that? will homosexual bunkmates who become involved be permitted to carry on their relationship in baracks or showers?,,,hmm,,,interesting potential issues,,, Some people believe we choose whom we love, and some believe in soul mates and still others believe there are psychological or even biological mechanisms which determine whom we fall in love with. But you speak of grown men and women who are going through the toughest training and physical ordeals of their life as if they have all the time in the world to give thought or attention to these sexual matters. Even if two men or women should find an inevitable attraction for each other, do you suppose it would work out any differntly than for a man and woman in the same unit? I know at least three women who met their husbands in service and were pregnant before they married. Do you really think they had sex in the barracks???? Hell, I'd kick them out myself - sex is a ready made tension reducer, if you are the one NOT getting it, you sure as hell don't want to be listening to it.
well, I dont know, my ex was in the navy as well as my brother and I never heard of the women and the men sleeping and showering in the same quarters,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, I dont know, my ex was in the navy as well as my brother and I never heard of the women and the men sleeping and showering in the same quarters,,,,, Until that changes, I refuse to join! 
|
|
|
|
|
