Topic: The Agenda - moves forward | |
---|---|
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! ![]() lol.. well since we have such a great sampling of adults who can control their sexual attraction and urges,, it may come sooner than later |
|
|
|
Redy wrote
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 volatile and that testosterone is a reason for aggression. This is neither sound logic nor 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 intention to have a good discussion and explain why some things that seem similar or logical have conditions which set them far apart. msharmony replied:
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. Who doesn’t agree with that? But the truth, it can happen, it happens EVERY SINGLE DAY, in any kind of public situation. The people joining the armed forces are the same people at OUT HERE. As adults we have to learn how to handle it. Unless a person is violent, under the influence, or mentally unstable, communication is the best solution. “I’m not interested, I’m here to do a job and I don’t want your feelings or mind to get in the way of any possible situation we might find ourselves in.” data! Easy enough, logical average adults would not have a problem with that and life would go on. 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,,,,
Consider - what makes you choose the fashions you wear? Are they items that make you look attractive, do you wear make up, style your hair, watch your weight? Why? Could it be you WANT people to oogle you? Do you care if you are attractive? Studies show that women predominantly dress for other women. Women LOOK at other woman for Queues; women look at other women to compare themselves. If women entering the service have your attitude they will be paranoid should the catch another woman giving them a sideways glance – in the shower or on the field. Obviously that doesn’t happen. They DON’T know now who is or isn’t looking for what reason. In an open environment, a lesbian would be likely to have pictures of her partner or girlfriend where ever that’s allowed. They are likely to get mail and packages from those people as well and discuss, reminisce, and laugh with others about those loved ones. THEN it would be more obvious who is and isn’t “like that”. And it would be an opportunity for support and friendships to form which is necessary for the vital jobs they will need to depend on each other to do. 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... BEHAVE? Is that how women get pregnant while in service? Is that how men overseas get STD’s? Did you know that that in WWII the men felt completely comfortable with overseas women because they could fall back on their standard and regular penicillin shots? Of course STD’s were only one of the reasons it was standard but is that BEHAVING? As for discretion: In an open environment most of the gays would have the option of being very private or open and whether male or female, this serves to bring people together as they can share the joys and longings for their loved ones. In this environment gays would understand who is available and who is not as would straight service members. In the real world if the gender preference is unknown advances may be made to an uninterested party but again communication is the proper response, not disgust or anger or violence. The more we feel comfortable about sharing our life’s experiences the closer friendship ties we make. And that is very important in how our military will bond and act as a single supportive unit. |
|
|
|
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. Your comment was used as an example of how this country continues to maintain an unequitable balance between the sexes. For example: we tend to accept that testoterone is the vehicle which leads to aggressive behaviors. Aggression in this example would be a man making the first move and successive moves toward a woman. It is also the reason we attribute some greater sex drive to men, thereby FORGIVING, them for their insistance on sexual encounter and any rage which might lead to violence when they are turned down or (not getting enough). That is biologically unsound, we know that now, but we continue to propagate the myth and allow men more leaway when it comes to any form of aggression. So the use of your comment was not personal but exemplary to my position. |
|
|
|
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,,,,, ![]() But it does happen somewhere and it will continue for both gay and straight whether DADT is repealed or not. |
|
|