rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque The Great wrote:
You forget that people move in the military. Even if Jon showered with gay Mark everyday, doesn't mean he's comfortable showering with gay Billy, the new guy. It also doesn't mean that Jon is comfortable showering with Sam, the open gay guy in his new unit.
But how do you know? and is Jon a friend did he tell you he isn't comfortable?
I'm not in the scenario. The scenario is Jon and gay Billy.
Ugly wrote:
Without repealing DADT, when SGT Thomas goes to the field now, he has to shower with gay Billy. see how it makes no difference? The point of my first post that started this tangent is that you're showering with enough guys to know that at some point, you're showering with a gay soldier. Repealing DADT and having that gay soldier come out, just lets you know specifically which soldier is the gay soldier. Now you can make an effort to avoid showering with that soldier whenever possible.
What's "enough"? Each person is different. Just because I feel comfortable showering with Ana, doesn't mean I feel comfortable showering with Sarah, no matter how many women I've showered with in the past. For you to think otherwise is silly.
It's a big psychological difference, which is the base for men and women separation to begin with.
Kachi wrote:
I'm going to need a credible source here. Sexuality is an enduring trait, whereas personality traits can vary throughout a lifetime. I've a rather extensive education of psychology, and to say that sexuality is a personality trait is contentious at best. Just because something isn't a physical trait (which sexuality is at least partially physical), doesn't mean it's a personality trait. One's religion is not a part of their personality, for instance.
I disagree, but I'm not going to go down that tangent (only need 12 posts to 4k). Pick whatever word you choose, at the end of the day, you don't know anything about knowing someone's skin color. On the other hand, you do know something about the person by knowing what they are sexually attracted to.
Kaichi wrote:
No, dumbass. Being anxious because of someone's sexuality or being seen naked by them is not the same as being afraid of being assaulted, baseless or not. Christ.
I didn't say anything about assault, so please answer the question."So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?"
Kaichi wrote:
I'm pretty sure you've actually just lost grasp of the argument.
Difference was in reference to discrimination of skin color to discrimination of someone's sexuality. The similarity was in reference to the comfort concerns that women have for men and what men have for homosexual men. I'm not sure who mixed up what, but that should clarify up things for you.
Kaichi wrote:
It's less that I'm in denial and more that you're ignorant. I've been in a lot of locker rooms, probably a lot more than you.
This is the thing, people grow out of being exposed to others and they grow into being more conservative with their bodies
UNTIL they are introduced to locker rooms. During this time, they have to go through a psychological change of thought. Even in my locker room experiences in middle school and high school, no one got naked, only undressed to their underwear. If that's the case for someone, actually showering in the public is another psychological change of thought.
So, while people like athletes may be accustomed to sharing showers with people throughout their lives, that's not true for everyone else. So, you can't assume the comfort levels for everybody and their past history.
Kaichi wrote:
Some boys/guys are more shy about nudity than others. Shyness is generally about body image, not expressly nudity or sexuality. People who are more secure with their body generally don't have a problem with being seen by the same sex. You'll just have to trust me-- this is a subject I am intimately familiar with. Kids are mostly ok with it otherwise because adults endorse it. That's pretty much how it works!
I completely agree that body image is a major factor to be comfortable with nudity, but that doesn't mean that people who are comfortable with their body has no problem with public nudity. Those are two different situations. Rather if it's from shame or sexual attraction, the over theme is that you don't want anyone to see you naked.
Kaichi wrote:
No, that IS what the DOD says. You're confusing (probably intentionally) homosexual CONDUCT with homosexual orientation. The DOD says very clearly that people are not to be discharged for their sexual orientation. They can, however, be discharged for homosexual conduct, which really just means that they can be discharged for sodomy, just like straight service members can be.
I think it's evident now that you actually didn't read the Homosexual Conduct Policy. A homosexual can get discharged out the military for being a homosexual without actually violating any Sodomy laws. This is what we argued in the last DADT thread my image argument. A person can get discharged for simply saying "I'm gay". That is not homosexual conduct, but is considered as such by the DOD. Saying "I'm gay" doesn't make you gay.
I'm not confusing conduct with orientation. You are confusing (probably intentionally) "being able to join" with "being allowed to join". As the DoD stated, your sexual orientation should be kept private, so there is no justification to just ask someone if they're sucking d*ck. That isn't ALLOWING homosexuals, but enables them to join without lying. Even if they asked your sexuality, homosexuals could still join because homosexuals don't walk around with Scarlett Letters.
Kaichi wrote:
Didn't you say you were in the military or something? Shouldn't you know more about this than I do?
I'm in the U.S Military, not the Red Ribbon Army of Unicorns and Rainbows. You know, the one you made up.