Cheryl really addressed the issue at its source. The attitudes of American culture are what creates the problem. Just for fun though, a few things struck me about the continuing discussion.Chris, not to pick on you, but I wonder if you noticed a few things about your responses. You asked what my reaction would be to finding myself having to shower in a roomful of cheerleaders (female cheerleaders, I assume). Your tacit assumption is of course that I would find these ladies sexually attractive. Well, yep, I imagine I likely would. I also imagine that my reaction to them would be, um... apparent for all to see. Now, playing along with Cheryl's point about cultural differences, I think we could all agree that these different attitudes are learned behaviors. The point here is that after the - I don't know 5th time in the shower with nothing sexual happening (OK, maybe the 25th time ) it would lose its effect to some degree. All kidding aside, there would be a point where, while I would certainly still have the ability to admire the ladies, it wouldn't be a big deal to me and no unwanted reactions would, um... arise.People who spend a lot of time as nudists feel this way. Nakedness is not a big deal if you're used to it. As Cheryl pointed out, there are many cultures in warmer parts of the world where public nudity is a normal thing. I can only reiterate my contention that Massimo was stating that gays in the military SHOULDN'T be a problem, not that it isn't a problem right now. The point here is that the problem is really with American societal views.The next thing that struck me about your post, Chris, was that by your choice of analogies, you assumed that you guys in the shower were as attractive to the gay man as a shower full of cheerleader babes would be to you. So all you Navy men were hot stuff, huh? Is this your professional opinion? Did you look around and think "wow, we're a bunch of naked good looking guys, this gay guy over here must be horny looking at us?" I'm being overly inflammatory on purpose here. The question is really "why did you feel uncomfortable?" Did he touch you in some way? Did he touch himself while checking you out? You should know, as a skeptic, that there are many different possibilities behind what we perceive. A few possible examples: I remember reading that some guys become somewhat aroused by the water in a shower. Some guys feel inadequate or strange and will sort of "check out" other guys in a gym shower situation because they want to know if they are "normal".My point again is that it is the perceptions and reactions of the group that creates the problem. Yes, if any individual makes constant unwanted advances that person is in the wrong. If the rules are that a no relations of that sort will be tolerated within the group, then a single advance should be grounds for dismissal. However, if a gay man in the military pursues a relationship with a man outside of his group, it should (there's that word again) be no different than when a straight man pursues a relationship with a woman.I guess my problem here is that any argument against gays in the military in general simply means that it's OK for the military to accommodate and even encourage overtly homophobic behavior. I realize that that is the reality of the modern day military, but I contend that it shouldn't be.As for the 4 way political party split, as nice as it sounds, it's impractical. It will not happen any time soon. For example, say the Republican's two main internal factions (which are split pretty much along the lines you envision) decided to break apart and form two new parties. Would the Democrats say "golly gee, what a great idea"? Hell no, they'd stick together better than before, realizing that two "Republican" parties would split the vote, allowing the Democrats to take over control. The same situation would happen in reverse.Having 4 legitimate choices in the political landscape would be great. I agree. The fact is, there is nothing stipulating the number of political parties that must exist. It is said that we have a "two party" system, but all it really means is that there are two major political parties. We can work to change this situation. The only ways to do it though, are to either join the party that agrees with your views on what you consider most important and work to change their views on what you don't like, or to support a "third party" that encompasses your values.Steve(wow, I made a lot of spelling errors - how embarrassing) Edited by: stevepainter at: 2/19/03 3:24:09 pm

Quote:... but I am saying that it is a violation of the heterosexual mans rights to privacy to allow the homosexual man nonconsensual access to the heterosexual mans naked body. It is akin to sexual harassment.I'm sure that all the heterosexual guys were perfectly respectful of each other in the shower. I'm sure that they never harass each other or make each other uncomfortable in any way. And I'm sure that the Easter Bunny leaves them brightly colored eggs on their bunks as a reward for their good behavior. Seriously, personally I consider it a violation of my right to privacy to have to share a shower with a bunch of guys regardless of their sexual orientation. Reminds me of the many reasons I'm glad I didn't join the military. I'm just not the kind of person that deals well with being told what to do if I don't agree with it.Steve

Chris, I have no desire to make points just to be argumentive. That would reduce the discussion to the level of many newsgroups. I don't take extreme positions for fun. Though I must admit I didn't think I am taking an extreme position here.Yes, I have the minority opinion here and out in public. I know this. But this is an issue that I have though long and hard about (please this isn't a pun). In fact my language about discipline and good order comes from the many leaders in the military who use those terms. They always use privacy as key term as well along with those words. My only point in making a post was that others, who would not be comfortable with homosexual sex, have been exposed to the extreme lack of privacy that serving in the military puts us in and realizing that gays were there came to a different conclusion.

You saidQuote:It's not likely that homosexuals will ever be in the majority. Since their partners tend to be of the same sex it stands to reason that they would not be reproducing at as fast a rate as heterosexuals. It's in the best interest of our species that homosexuals remain a minority. I'm arguing this from an evolutionary perspective, not a moral one. My posing a homosexual majority was not a society wide proposal. I realize that this would have dire implications for the survival of humanity. I was speaking in terms of smaller organizations. You are most likely correct in your idea of their not being a homosexual majority in the military, but it is NOT impossible. The whole thing with this "don't ask, don't tell" is that many gays in the military will continue "in the closet". If all who really are gay decided to "come out", I think that the number would be higher than what people might expect. In any smaller group of society, I think that there is a chance that homosexuals could indeed take over a majority...just as in the fashion industry or the hair design industry.Ernie B.

In ancient cultures we consider "great", homosexuality was the norm. Sparta, with it's army which consisted of every male citizen, was noted to be rampantly homosexual--as were it's women. Greece in general has a history of accepting homosexuals (Alexander the Great was one, as was Sappho--where do you think we get the term Lesbian?). It's only now in our Judeo/Christianized society that such people are looked down upon. Just because you're homosexual doesn't mean you don't procreate (or at least it didn't--it was your duty to have children).

My post is only going to briefly touch on the article itself and will mostly focus and respond toothers posts and responses. My take on Mossimo's article is that although homosexuality in themilitary currently matters, it ideally should not. On this point I agree. Of course it is easy to goon and on about what *should* be in this world. The reality is that it does not work that way andat times, we have to settle for what is most practical or best able to deliver the desired outcome. In this case the desired outcome would have to be clearly defined. For simplicity sake I shalldefine said outcome as an efficient and cohesive military unit.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Quote:&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The day we can get rid of this silly homophobia crap will be&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp the day stuff like this doesn't matter so much. Right now,&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp however, I do feel homosexuals cause problems with morale.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp If the military would simply provide some privacy the problem&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp would probably become less obvious.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp - Chris.I agree and I disagree. I can see how providing privacy would certainly alleviate some problemsor make them less obvious. Personally I do not want the problems chased underground tosimply become less obvious, I do not see that as a good solution. I also do not see howincreased privacy would be conducive to creating an efficient and cohesive military unit. I thinkthat being able to function and work as a solid unit is a key part of the military. At a time ofwar/action privacy is a luxury most soldiers are not afforded. If they have not gained a high levelof trust and comfort working in tight and sometimes awkward quarters with limited, if any, privacythis may be more detrimental to unit cohesiveness and morale than being naked in the showerswith a gay soldier. Of course, I have never been a soldier so all I can offer is speculation.I agree with Mossimo when he writes "I have never understood what the 'gay problem' is allabout." I have been raised in a very open environment and I currently live in a community thathas a very open and diverse gay population. This has never been an issue for me. I am not,however, so blindly idealistic that I will decide it should not be an issue for anyone else. Realityvaries greatly from my long list of what should and should not be.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Quote:&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Imagine how interesting it is to look over and see Seaman&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Recruit Peters oggling your glistening naked body sporting &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp a semi-erection.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp -Chris.My first response to this is that as a female who is sexually attracted to other females - naked ornot - I can honestly say I am not attracted to all females. And that when I use the communalshower at the local pool I do not ogle all the glistening naked bodies. That being said, I mustnow be honest. As a female I often forget that males tend to be more visually stimulated thanmost women. As such comparing my experience and tendencies to what I think a males reaction*should* be is an unfair comparison. I can certainly see how being forced to live and work intight quarters with someone who may be sexually attracted to you, when you do not share thesame attraction, would be uncomfortable. I am commenting on this next quote because I found itamusing (no offense intended.) "So it is no wonder that you can imagine not being aroused afterbeing around a group of average naked women. You might actually throw up after a while." Well, when naked I am an average naked woman and to date I have not made anyone throw up(that I know of.) I am certainly finding this and interesting train of thought. As I have said I amslow to remember that men and women tend to respond to visual stimulation differently. &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Quote:&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp A gay man is attracted to men in the same way you are &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp attracted to women. Just because the gay man hides his&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp interest while in those showers, the point is the showering&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp experience is much more to him than it is intended to be &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp for those men. He is in a state of bliss and this makes every&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp hetero-male uncomfortable. ...throwing the "opposite" sex&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp into a room full of naked men is NOT fair to those men.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp It is borderline abuse in my opinion.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp -Chris.Here I have to take issue with absolutist statements (though I find it humourous that I amspeaking for gay and straight men.) Not every gay male would be in a state of bliss and notevery hetero-male would be uncomfortable. However, there is a more important point here, thatof borderline abuse. If one were to allow a male into the women's shower action would certainlybe taken, no questions asked as to the inappropriateness of said event. Were the situationreversed, any male to speak up about feeling uncomfortable about having a female watch himshower would most likely be teased and harassed by his buddies. We tend not to consider suchactions against men as abusive and assert that they (men) are better able to deal with suchthings and therefore should not complain. Now add gay men to the equation and I have no idea. I think the line becomes less clear and I honestly have no solution to offer. I think it is importantto note that peoples experience with this issue runs from inconsequential to abusive (comparethe two different experiences of Chris O'Conner and JeffBailey.) And as with most situations ittends to be the extreme that gets the majority of the attention. This in turn leads many to believethat this is the norm for said interaction, leading to misconstrued perceptions. This is not todown play the seriousness of the issue, rather, to point out that many such interactions areindeed non-events. I think Chris summed it up perfectly with "it is a violation of the heterosexualmans rights to privacy to allow the homosexual man nonconsensual access to the heterosexualmans naked body. It is akin to sexual harassment." On a personal level I can agree that a shower is not a sexual situation and that being naked isnot a sexual situation. However, in our current society these things easily become sexual. Weuse the allure of nakedness in all manners of advertising - sex sells. Is this right or good? Whoknows, it happens and as such we need to be aware of it. There are always those who do notbuy into societal norms but the reality is that the majority does. So where does the responsibility lay for dealing with this issue? The military has to makedecisions that are practical and can best lead to their desired outcome for military efficiency andeffectiveness. What this decision may entail I honestly cannot guess. I can certainly see astrong argument for not allowing gays in the military given our current societal attitudes. Is it upto the military to challenge these norms? It certainly would be interesting if the military were totake a progressive approach in this but I am not holding my breath. I am not saying that gayshave no right to defend their country, rather, that in knowing the climate and the adversity onewould have to face in such a situation why choose it? There are far better ways to work towardschanging this attitude and perception towards gays in society. As societal attitudes andreactions change so will those in the military, or at least one would hope.(Chris, I must apologize, I realized after writing this I have only used quotes from yourresponses, that was not intentional. You just lucked out and are tonight's chosen one!)

My apologies for completly sucking at formatting, i shall explore and hopefully resolve this immediately.Jenna

JennaThat was an incredible post and I'll respond later today when I get a free moment. Chris

Hi all,I finally just joined this group, and I hope to have enough time here and there to contribute meaningfully to the discussion.Gee, didn't think that an article on gays in the military would generate that much discussion!I've seen a recurrent comment I'd like to address: yes, the point of the column was that someone's sexual orientations shouldn't matter, I am very well aware that they do in the current climate!Cheers,Massimo

I am a shy person by nature. I would be extremely uncomfortable in any situation where I would be subjected to intimate exposure in front of my peers. I think that to a certain extent we all feel this way. For me, it does not matter if the "other" (and that is important) is male or female, homosexual or heterosexual. They are "other" and I experience humiliation by such forced subjection. However in any significantly-developed society, this sort of humiliation is unavoidable and there will be certain circumstances in which my/(y)our "privacy" is compromised. Our response to this on the social level, I think, is to define what constitutes as appropriate and inappropriate breaches of one's privacy. In the Navy, for example, same-sex group showering does not constitute as a violation of the individual's privacy for purposes of expediency, when in fact it is a violation. I do not think that by introducing homosexual persons into such an environment constitutes a greater degree of violation than already exists. As I see it, there already exists a degree of underlying unease present in the psyches of those members who have sacrificed their "privacy" in the service of expediency. I feel that this unease is projected upon those that are seen as "other" and is certainly not limited to those grouped under the homosexual marque. A friend of mine, who is serving in the present conflict, was arguing with his mother about giving the members of his unit Easter baskets. His mother wanted to put together a special Easter basket for everyone in his unit, and she wanted him to hand them out (he was on leave during the conversation.) His response to his mother settled the issue with complete finality. He said, "in the military, it's generally a good thing to not stand out." His mother caught his meaning immediately and realized that her behavior would result in no small degree of harassment to her son. This sort of group behavior is known as scapegoating and involves the unconscious projection of various insecurities, guilts, and repressions of the members of the group upon a victim....an "other."I do think the violation of privacy is at root of the issue, but probably not in exactly the same sense Chris does. The constraints of civilization (and some more than others) by necessity dehumanize individuals through the process of appropriating their autonomy. Humans cope with this dehumanization through process of defining the kinds of subjugation which are or are not appropriate. Over time, these definitions become cannonical and authoritative; they become embedded into our collective identities and in turn come to define us.I agree that it is a matter of redefining our social perspective on, in this case, homosexuality, but I don't believe that such a redefinition will alleviate the repressed humiliation which results from the more regimented and parochial aspects of our civilization.