I
Iaculus
I don't recall making that argument. I'm not sure I can make it any more explicit and clear, but let me try:
In the US culture, hetersexual men don't shower with heterosexual women because it causes unnecessary sexual tension. Most heterosexual males, when they see a naked woman, stops thinking about work, hobbies or whatever and starts thinking about sex. It doesn't make them want to pounce on every girl they see, as you so eloquently put, but it's a distraction, and a daily tension they don't have to deal with.
The converse is true - if there's a one way mirror so the men can't see the women, but the women can see them then the males still have sexual tension that must be dealt with.
Now, EITHER people are arguing that:
1. Gay people are fundamentally different and therefore not subject to sexual urges (ie, heterosexual and homosexual sexuality is fundamentally different)
2. People just get to deal with it (ie, the whole culture needs to change RIGHT THE @#$# NOW)
I didn't think that people would argue in favor of #1, but some here appear to be saying that homosexual males either are not aroused by the sight of naked males, or simply don't get aroused by the sight of naked men the same way that heterosexual males get aroused by the sight of naked women. It's odd that people would say that there's a difference when it seems like they've been trying to tell us it's just as innate and strong a sexual drive as heterosexuality. If #1 is true, that would seemingly preclude the existence of gay porn, but as far as I can tell it's not unpopular.
The people arguing for #2 are just clueless. You can't change a culture overnight. It's been a long time since homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, but the reality is that things are actually moving very quickly. The latest polls show a distinct change (which is why Obama is able to at least meet and make promises - I can guarantee you if there were less than 60% support he'd treat homosexuality as every other president has).
I'm sorry to have offended you or anyone else - this is not my intention. But those that don't recognize even the seemingly insignificant barriers to change will eventually trip over them. Many may dismiss this as a stupid argument, but it's completely logical within the framework of the culture at hand, and to dismiss it without examination will prove to be a hindrance to their goals.
-Adam[/QUOTE]
You forgot option 3 - it's been happening for years, and hasn't caused much of a problem, if anything. Seriously, how often have you seen openly gay people getting kicked out of public bathrooms in civilian life so far? It's not as if the military has a monopoly on people of the same sex getting cooped up together for an extended period of time - they're just the only ones who will formally discharge you if, say, you're a guy who prefers the schlong to the hoo-haa.
The reason is simple - the genders tend to be segregated from a relatively young age, whereas homosexual and heterosexual people of the same gender are not. As such, sharing bathrooms for the latter rapidly becomes a norm, one that can be dealt with with a minimum of fuss, whereas a heterosexual male popping into the women's bathroom is sufficiently out of social context to cause a definite fuss. All that is happening here is that a truth would be acknowledged that has been present for years - some people you share a bathroom with may be gay.
Again, we got rid of DADT nine years ago, and we haven't had any problems like this. It's not as if the UK is a seething, hedonistic pot of ultraliberality, either - in many ways, we're just as straight-laced as you. We got the exact same shrieking overreactions to the notion, and then once it had happened - bam. Nothing. It's a non-issue. It will not be tripped over.
but what they told me is that life is hard (especially in basic) in the military. I don't think the "distraction" or uncomfortable-ness is an issue since the first few month is uncomfortable.
