home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!ames!sun-barr!olivea!bu.edu!buast7.bu.edu!kane
- From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
- Newsgroups: ba.politics
- Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
- Message-ID: <105743@bu.edu>
- Date: 29 Dec 92 16:16:28 GMT
- References: <1992Dec28.114046.1520@netcom.com> <105715@bu.edu> <1992Dec29.050754.14925@netcom.com>
- Sender: news@bu.edu
- Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
- Lines: 77
-
- In article <1992Dec29.050754.14925@netcom.com>
- phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
-
- >In article <105715@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
-
- >>Come on, admit it---the reason we have separate bathrooms is
- >>so that men don't sexually harass women.
-
- >No, otherwise there would be large scale rapes in nudist colonies.
-
- >It is sexual context. People from very puritanical cultures seem to
- >have a hard time dealing with something such as a topless beach -- to
- >them, such heretofore unencountered sexual "display" *must* mean the
- >women are all loose and "sexually available", which is of course, not the
- >case.
-
- >Yet a person accustomed to such beaches would think it no big deal.
-
- The perfect argument FOR allowing homosexual service members.
- But perhaps you think the military can't adjust.
-
- What, they're not regimented enough to adjust to new situations?
-
- >Whether you like it or not, men in a locker room do not care to be placed
- >in a sexual context out of their choice. The only information on this other
- >than personal anecdotes is the complaints of men in professional sports.
- >Their complaint is not that some women reporter is going to rape them, but that
- >after a game involving a lot of hard work, they want the locker room to be
- >free of any sexual context. And both women and homosexual men introduce that
- >sexual context.
-
- No one can be made responsible for another's subjective feelings.
-
- There are people on the street that I find irresistible, even with their
- clothes on----in fact, it is a commonly held opinion that scant clothing
- is more seductive than complete nudity----but I am completely groundless
- in demanding a hotty/hunk-free sidewalk.
-
- >Ask a straight man how comfortable he would be if every time he took a shower
- >in his home, a number of straight women (that are not sexually interested in
- >him in any way) were to be cluttering his hallway. It can be bothersome.
-
- Are they responsible? How does he know their thoughts and emotions?
-
- >Because of differences in sexual outlook between men and women (and that
- >includes homosexual men as well), almost all women would NOT want
- >unisex showers and bathrooms. Most men would not either, but, there would
- >be a higher percentage of men that WOULD want it -- most likely for hanky
- >panky.
-
- So you are admitting that my premise would be true in certain circumstances.
-
- What is this difference in sexual outlook? Genetic or socialized?
-
- If you think the latter, you'd better come up with an argument about how
- we can't unlearn it.
-
- >Men are far more often the sexual agressor. Women, for this reason among
- >others, do not want unisex facilities.
-
- So, once again, you concede my point, at least partially and ambiguously.
-
- >Men are not used to be sexually
- >agressed against. In the military now, homosexuality has to be hidden. If
- >it were open, it would remove one check against sexual agression against men.
- >I.e., a homosexual NCO could not make the slightest move against a private
- >because his homosexuality has to be hidden.
-
- This is the crux. Men don't like being put in a woman's "traditional place".
- It makes them embarrassed about their own (potential) behavior.
-
- >In short, given seperate facilities as in men's and women's, I can't see any
- >other rational reason to ban homosexuals.
-
- Look, men are used to seeing other men's naked bodies. Gay men can't be held
- responsible for creating a climate of fear. They CAN be held responsible for
- their sexual conduct, but no another person's thoughts.
-