Gays shouldn't be in the Boy Scouts. [Archive]

Art Vandelay

25th September 2006, 12:56 AM

I never knew this was a problem. I can't even count how many times I've done those things.You've been a gay man allowed into the BSA?
:p

Allowing people with a sexual interest into a private environment that is supposed to be asexual can cause problems.I can almost see where you're going, but what you actually said doesn't make sense. I guess what you meant is something like "When a private environment is supposed to be asexual, allowing people with a sexual interest in other people in that environment can cause problems. Even then, there are a lot of problems with this idea. School is supposed to be asexual, but most people don't have a problem with coed schools.

As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business telling groups who they must admit. And the BSA has no business asking for, or receiving, any preferential treatment from the government. The BSA has a right to discriminate against gays and atheists. And we have a right to discriminate against them.

I am for homosexual people having every other right that we can allow though, such as marriage. But not ones where we regulate by sexual preference or gender/privacy.So... homosexuals can have every right... except for the ones that they're not allowed to have? I don't think that you're expressing yourself very clearly here.

Tanja

25th September 2006, 01:11 AM

That is a bizzare idea (I don't know why I am even replying). Should gay people then not be let into gyms or swimming pools? And who should be allowed into nudist beaches? Only celibate people?

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 01:21 AM

Just like men generally aren't allowed to accompany girls to changing rooms or to babysit girls alone...gay men shouldn't be allowed into the Boy Scouts.Quite right, but it goes further than just the Boy Scouts.

Teachers are obviously often required to attend to bathroom troubles. Nurses are another obvious one where highly intimate procedures may apply. Airline stewards may be required to accompany unescorted boys to the bathroom, so obviously that can't be allowed either.

Doctors, Police. paramedics and firefighters may also be required, in the course of duty, to see a man's private parts, so gays have to be excluded from those occupations as well.

In fact, since there are just so damn many places a gay guy might get to see a boy's penis, I think we need to legislate against it. With so many occupations, the easiest way would be to ban gays from working altogether - in fact, just outlaw homosexuality!

Great points, EGarrett

Darat

25th September 2006, 01:23 AM

Mycroft

25th September 2006, 01:25 AM

If the PE teacher is a homosexual of the same gender and the kids know the PE teacher is homosexual is that fair for the kids?

In what way would it be unfair?

Darat

25th September 2006, 01:26 AM

In what way would it be unfair?

It's in the rest of my post:

And by "fair for the kids" I mean because I believe that it is considered wrong for example a female PE teacher to enter into a male childrens' changing rooms?

I assume of course that the female in the male changing room would of course not be interested in the kids in any improper manner but that the kids would be embarrassed is one of the reasons for such guidelines?

Mycroft

25th September 2006, 01:36 AM

It's in the rest of my post:

And by "fair for the kids" I mean because I believe that it is considered wrong for example a female PE teacher to enter into a male childrens' changing rooms?

I assume of course that the female in the male changing room would of course not be interested in the kids in any improper manner but that the kids would be embarrassed is one of the reasons for such guidelines?

It doesn't seem reasonable to be that a child should feel any more uncomfortable in that situation than he would if his PE teacher were heterosexual. If he does, he needs to get over it, just as many children need to get over locker-room issues.

My opinion.

egslim

25th September 2006, 01:39 AM

What about bisexuals? According to your reasoning they shouldn't be allowed to go into any bathroom. Not the men's, not the women's, nor one specifically for bisexuals.

a private environment that is supposed to be asexual
Name one such environment. People can become sexually attracted to someone they fancy anyplace, anytime. And it's generally not a problem, unless they act on that attraction in a way that's considered unappropriate.

We don't regulate people's thoughts, only their actions.

Darat

25th September 2006, 01:41 AM

It doesn't seem reasonable to be that a child should feel any more uncomfortable in that situation than he would if his PE teacher were heterosexual. If he does, he needs to get over it, just as many children need to get over locker-room issues.

My opinion.

Consider when you were say 14 in a changing room - wouldn't a female PE teacher in the room whilst you were showering and changing have caused you embarrassment? Would the school have allowed that?

slingblade

25th September 2006, 01:45 AM

Cylinder

25th September 2006, 01:46 AM

Consider when you were say 14 in a changing room - wouldn't a female PE teacher in the room whilst you were showering and changing have caused you embarrassment? Would the school have allowed that?

Or argue that the child needs to get over it?

Darat's argument is the same issue that I have with homosexuals openly serving in the military.

Mycroft

25th September 2006, 02:01 AM

Consider when you were say 14 in a changing room - wouldn't a female PE teacher in the room whilst you were showering and changing have caused you embarrassment? Would the school have allowed that?

I don't see it as the same at all.

Or argue that the child needs to get over it?

Darat's argument is the same issue that I have with homosexuals openly serving in the military.

Your issue with gays in the military is that straights might feel queezy showering with them?

Darat

25th September 2006, 02:07 AM

It's only unfair to them if you've reared your children to be homophobes, and they automatically assume any homosexual person of their gender is a pedophile.

Pehaps I've not been too clear about my point.

Society seems to consider there are good reasons for not for example allowing female PE teachers to be in male children's changing rooms when the kids may be naked.

This I have always assumed is not because anyone thinks the female PE teachers are paedophiles but a recognition that the kids (mainly talking about adolescents of course) will be embarrassed about a female being in the changing rooms. T

Darat

25th September 2006, 02:07 AM

I don't see it as the same at all.

...snip...

Why not?

Mycroft

25th September 2006, 02:14 AM

Why not?

Because this kind of body-shyness is a product of societal mores. We are not inherently embarassed by someone from the opposite gender viewing us, we are embarassed because we've learned to be. By the very same societal mores, it's okay to be naked with and to shower with people of the same gender.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 02:19 AM

If the PE teacher is a homosexual of the same gender and the kids know the PE teacher is homosexual is that fair for the kids?Then it's ok for a gay teacher to be in there if the kids don't know he's gay?

Or, how about the married male teacher who secretly visits rent-boys? Or that single male teacher who owns a Peugeot 303, wears Gucci shoes and gets his hair done at Les Boys? All the kids think he's gay. Can we profile all teachers for their sexual preferences to make sure?

Darat

25th September 2006, 02:19 AM

Because this kind of body-shyness is a product of societal mores. We are not inherently embarassed by someone from the opposite gender viewing us, we are embarassed because we've learned to be.

I agree.

By the very same societal mores, it's okay to be naked with and to shower with people of the same gender.

That's a different issue to the one I've been posting about.

Mycroft

25th September 2006, 02:22 AM

That's a different issue to the one I've been posting about.

Different in what way?

Darat

25th September 2006, 02:27 AM

Then it's ok for a gay teacher to be in there if the kids don't know he's gay?

Well that could be one of the conclusions that we could come to.

Or, how about the married male teacher who secretly visits rent-boys?

If it's a secret the kids won't know and therefore won't be embarressed will they?

Or that single male teacher who owns a Peugeot 303, wears Gucci shoes and gets his hair done at Les Boys? All the kids think he's gay. Can we profile all teachers for their sexual preferences to make sure?

No and I've not suggested anything like that. I'm just trying to look at this more from a kid's viewpoint to highlight one of those little irrationalities we have in our society. I think it has also highlighted how certain aspects of society don't keep up with changes in other aspects.

Darat

25th September 2006, 02:29 AM

Different in what way?

I've been talking about adult supervision of kids in situations that can cause embarrassment for kids. As far as I know PE teachers do not shower with the kids no matter what their gender is in comparison to the kids?

Mycroft

25th September 2006, 02:34 AM

I've been talking about adult supervision of kids in situations that can cause embarrassment for kids. As far as I know PE teachers do not shower with the kids no matter what their gender is in comparison to the kids?

Okay, that's true, but by societal mores it's still okay for boys to shower in the presence of men, correct?

Darat

25th September 2006, 02:42 AM

Okay, that's true, but by societal mores it's still okay for boys to shower in the presence of men, correct?

As far as I am aware yes.

(I say "as far as I am aware" since I don't go to public swimming baths and so on so I don't know if over the last say ten years the relentless "paedophile predators are everywhere you can't take a picture of the school play" media stories has changed what is "acceptable" in public changing rooms.)

slingblade

25th September 2006, 02:55 AM

Pehaps I've not been too clear about my point.

Society seems to consider there are good reasons for not for example allowing female PE teachers to be in male children's changing rooms when the kids may be naked.

This I have always assumed is not because anyone thinks the female PE teachers are paedophiles but a recognition that the kids (mainly talking about adolescents of course) will be embarrassed about a female being in the changing rooms. T

Why, exactly, will they be embarrassed?

I'm presuming it's because any female is a potential sexual partner in a vague and general sense to many boys, and also because adult females usually represent Mom, again in a vague and general sense. Feeling any sort of excitement in an adult woman's presence can often be uncomfortably confusing and embarrassing.

But if it isn't about sex, then I'm not sure what role a gay person plays to straight youths of the same gender which would embarrass them in that situation. Not a potential sexual partner, one presumes, and not a mother figure. The only embarrassment potential seems to me to be one of "gee, I hope he's not here because he likes boys. After all, he is gay." Hence, it would seem to be the assumption that gay men are pedophillic which causes the embarrassment.

What else would there be to be embarrassed about if on the other hand, it's perfectly normal for the straight PE teacher to be there, and it not be embarrassing for the kids?

Then again, if any of the children are gay, then having a straight PE teacher see you in the changing rooms could also be embarrassing.

Is that also a problem, and if so, should we do anything about it? More segregation, perhaps? Only straight students with straight teachers, and vice-versa?

Mycroft

25th September 2006, 02:56 AM

As far as I am aware yes.

(I say "as far as I am aware" since I don't go to public swimming baths and so on so I don't know if over the last say ten years the relentless "paedophile predators are everywhere you can't take a picture of the school play" media stories has changed what is "acceptable" in public changing rooms.)

Then the boy is unlikely to feel uncomfortable in the presense of his gay gym teacher unless someone has told him he should feel that way.

Darat

25th September 2006, 03:20 AM

Why, exactly, will they be embarrassed?

I'm presuming it's because any female is a potential sexual partner in a vague and general sense to many boys, and also because adult females usually represent Mom, again in a vague and general sense. Feeling any sort of excitement in an adult woman's presence can often be uncomfortably confusing and embarrassing.

I assume that is some of the general reasons and as Mycroft stated we are brought up with certain societal mores.

But if it isn't about sex, then I'm not sure what role a gay person plays to straight youths of the same gender which would embarrass them in that situation. Not a potential sexual partner, one presumes, and not a mother figure. The only embarrassment potential seems to me to be one of "gee, I hope he's not here because he likes boys. After all, he is gay." Hence, it would seem to be the assumption that gay men are pedophillic which causes the embarrassment.

Above you said that "I'm presuming it's because any female is a potential sexual partner in a vague and general sense to many boys" - why isn't this a reason for the potential embarrassment when a kid knows that the adult in question is gay. If the reason is some idea that all gay men are paedophilic then the reverse is surely true i.e. the reasons girls are embarrassed with a male PE teacher in their changing rooms is that they have the idea that all straight men are paedophilic?

I think for adolescents it is quite normal for them to be all over the place about matters of gender and sexuality - I don't think we need the idea of assumptions of paedophilic tendencies to explain the confusions and embarrassments that are just part and parcel of being an adolescent.

What else would there be to be embarrassed about if on the other hand, it's perfectly normal for the straight PE teacher to be there, and it not be embarrassing for the kids?

Because as I say adolescents are all over the place in regards to their own emotions, sex, gender identity and so on but soceity had given us some "guidelines" - i.e. it's OK for an adult of the same gender because there are meant to be no sexual overtones in that.

Then again, if any of the children are gay, then having a straight PE teacher see you in the changing rooms could also be embarrassing.

Don't follow the logic on that one?

Is that also a problem, and if so, should we do anything about it? More segregation, perhaps? Only straight students with straight teachers, and vice-versa?

Personally I don't think it is a problem so there is nothing that needs to be done about it. I just think it's a interesting exercise to consider.

Darat

25th September 2006, 03:21 AM

Then the boy is unlikely to feel uncomfortable in the presense of his gay gym teacher unless someone has told him he should feel that way.

Why?

Mycroft

25th September 2006, 03:39 AM

Why?

"...but soceity had given us some "guidelines" - i.e. it's OK for an adult of the same gender because there are meant to be no sexual overtones in that."

Darat

25th September 2006, 03:48 AM

"...but soceity had given us some "guidelines" - i.e. it's OK for an adult of the same gender because there are meant to be no sexual overtones in that."

That said "had" - i.e. the past - we are discussing the world as it is today.

So again "why"?

TragicMonkey

25th September 2006, 04:12 AM

egslim

25th September 2006, 04:27 AM

Sheesh. The nudity taboo is a purely cultural thing. It's learned.
True: http://www.antipixel.com/blog/archives/2003/09/13/the_gentle_art_of_japanese_bathing.html
Traditionally men and women bathed together, and segregation occurred among classes (no self-respecting samurai would want to bathe with a merchant). That began to change upon arrival of blue-nosed foreigners in the 1850s

Darat

25th September 2006, 04:29 AM

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 04:30 AM

Sheesh. The nudity taboo is a purely cultural thing. It's learned. And ingrained so well that kids are going to be embarrassed in the locker room no matter what sexuality they or the coach or the other kids are*. Hell, there doesn't need to be an adult in the room for them to develop issues about it. Blame our prissy ancestors who started associating nudity with sex and being shocked by both.

*Except for that one creepy kid who seems to really want to keep his clothes off. There was always one of those.Couldn't agree more, and the question's been around for a very long time - Jonathan Swift's Houyhnhnms couldn't get a line on clothes at all.

Couple of odd attitudes about nudity, we have a culture here - among the indigenous people, the Maori - who are so averse to nudity that, when in communal showers, they generally wear shorts and never get naked. Women don't have the same problem (according to women I know). Our friends the Aussies have an odd culture, too. Their sheilas will take their clothes off at the drop of a hat.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 05:15 AM

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 05:20 AM

Quite right, but it goes further than just the Boy Scouts.

Teachers are obviously often required to attend to bathroom troubles. Nurses are another obvious one where highly intimate procedures may apply. Airline stewards may be required to accompany unescorted boys to the bathroom, so obviously that can't be allowed either.

Doctors, Police. paramedics and firefighters may also be required, in the course of duty, to see a man's private parts, so gays have to be excluded from those occupations as well.

In fact, since there are just so damn many places a gay guy might get to see a boy's penis, I think we need to legislate against it. With so many occupations, the easiest way would be to ban gays from working altogether - in fact, just outlaw homosexuality!

Great points, EGarrett

Actualy the EMS thing is even more complicated as I am legaly obligated in some situations to take a child agenst their will and cut their clothes off, and child here means under 18. You see in truama you often need to cut clothing off and people under 18 can not legaly refuse EMS treatment.

So no one should ever be allowed to work as an EMT.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 05:25 AM

Why, exactly, will they be embarrassed?

Is that also a problem, and if so, should we do anything about it? More segregation, perhaps? Only straight students with straight teachers, and vice-versa?

As a teen would you have felt confortable showering with a gay man?

Dave1001

25th September 2006, 05:59 AM

There are certain activities and environments where people are separated due to sexual privacy issues. Bathrooms for example.

Allowing people with a sexual interest into a private environment that is supposed to be asexual can cause problems.

Just like men generally aren't allowed to accompany girls to changing rooms or to babysit girls alone...gay men shouldn't be allowed into the Boy Scouts.

I am for homosexual people having every other right that we can allow though, such as marriage. But not ones where we regulate by sexual preference or gender/privacy.

Interesting, and probably a defensible position. So would you support gay men being allowed into the girl scouts? And lesbian women into the boy scouts? I guess bisexuals are SOL. But on the other hand, asexuals are the ones, in this context, that would truly enjoy the best of both worlds.

Dave1001

25th September 2006, 06:03 AM

Cylinder

25th September 2006, 06:27 AM

Your issue with gays in the military is that straights might feel queezy showering with them?

Not really. The problem was/would be that to be practical it would introduce a level of segregation within the military that would impact discipline and morale without providing a commensurate benefit to the services demographically. I do want to point out the distinction I made regarding homosexuals serving openly.

I think for jobs not involving the Personnel Reliability Program, homosexuality probably should not be pro-actively investigated by the various services. Despite a few initial hiccups, Don't Ask/Don't Tell has worked remarkably well.

I suppose I would support the same general policy over the hypothetical gym teacher, though it would lead to some tougher legal challenges.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 06:28 AM

Being an EMT would be a lot to go through just to be able to molest little boys once in a blue moon.

Hey it could be girls so hetero's are out as well.

Cylinder

25th September 2006, 06:42 AM

Actualy the EMS thing is even more complicated as I am legaly obligated in some situations to take a child agenst their will and cut their clothes off, and child here means under 18. You see in truama you often need to cut clothing off and people under 18 can not legaly refuse EMS treatment.

So no one should ever be allowed to work as an EMT.

Right- but I bet your basic policy is for same sex assessments and treatment where available or requested. Consent is only waived in instances of extreme emergency which really do not translate here and clinical situations have a very different cultural context.

I once had to pull my wiener out for a female nurse to take a stab at it with a Foley. She was a real hottie but the little guy still tried to run and hide.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 06:49 AM

Right- but I bet your basic policy is for same sex assessments and treatment where available or requested. Consent is only waived in instances of extreme emergency which really do not translate here and clinical situations have a very different cultural context.

Well EMS is a bit different, you have to qualify to be able to refuse treatment and transport, as it is assumed that if an ambulance was called you are going to be treated and transported.

Now it would need to be a relatively significant trauma to make me want to expose all that much.

I once had to pull my wiener out for a female nurse to take a stab at it with a Foley. She was a real hottie but the little guy still tried to run and hide.
I am not suprised, foley's are scary.

Upchurch

25th September 2006, 07:29 AM

fuelair

25th September 2006, 07:37 AM

Sorry, I can't get over the feeling this is missing something......................................... ......Got it!!

It's true!

Mephisto

25th September 2006, 07:42 AM

I'm confused. Do they mean that young gay boys shouldn't be allowed or that gay men shouldn't be scout leaders?

Considering the numerous allegations of molestation, I would think that the B.S.A. should be concerned about the leadership more than the membership.

September 14 - A Boy Scout troop leader is in jail accused of sexually abusing a boy during a trip to Oklahoma. Stephen Gragert appeared in a Sumner County courtroom on Thursday for an extradition hearing. The hearing was delayed so Gragert could have more time to speak to his attorney.

A neighbor of Gragert's say he's not surprised about the allegations. He wouldn't go into detail about why, just saying he's had trouble with Gragert's family in the past. Gragert was the Boy Scout leader for the alleged victim. According to Oklahoma authorities, the incident happened when Gragert took troops to the Alabaster Cavern State Park in northern Oklahoma. An affidavit says the alleged victim was arguing with another scout, when Gragert made him stay with him alone in his tent. That is not allowed. That's where authorities say Gragert touched and fondled the boy's genitals.

http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/3923392.html
_________

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. It has also been raised in connection with recent scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 07:44 AM

Sorry, I can't get over the feeling this is missing something......................................... ......Got it!!

It's true!

Shouldn't that be

It's true!:)

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 07:46 AM

I'm confused. Do they mean that young gay boys shouldn't be allowed or that gay men shouldn't be scout leaders?

Well currently both are banned.

Upchurch

25th September 2006, 07:49 AM

I thought the discussion at hand was gay leaders, but yes, I also believe gay boys should be allowed in as well. And atheists, too. Basically, I agree with this guy (http://www.scoutingforall.org/).

This Guy

25th September 2006, 07:49 AM

I was a Boy Scout. (Technically speaking, having earned the rank of Eagle, I'm still am a Boy Scout.) Over two decades ago, they already had a rule in place that meetings and camp outs could not take place unless there were at least two adults present. This usually boiled down to one of the Scout Masters and one of the boy's fathers.

The idea was if someone got really hurt, there would be someone to take the hurt boy somewhere and someone to watch the rest. It was later adapted to protect the adults against fradulent claims and protect the boys agains the possibility of any real claims.

As a past Den Leader and Assistant Cub Master, I can vouch for that. I never allowed myself to be alone with any of the boys, other than my own. That was standard procedure. It was as much for the leaders protection from false accusations, as it was for the kids.

CFLarsen

25th September 2006, 08:08 AM

Why are people assuming that gay men will go after children?

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 08:10 AM

Why are people assuming that gay men will go after children?

I am not sure they are, it is to rationalize their banning of gays for religious reasons, but if they stated it in those terms they would not be able get as much support.

Upchurch

25th September 2006, 08:10 AM

Why are people assuming that gay men will go after children?
Because homophobia is irrational.

CFLarsen

25th September 2006, 08:23 AM

I am not sure they are, it is to rationalize their banning of gays for religious reasons, but if they stated it in those terms they would not be able get as much support.

I meant: People here, in this thread.

pounce

25th September 2006, 08:36 AM

It's only unfair to them if you've reared your children to be homophobes, and they automatically assume any homosexual person of their gender is a pedophile.

exactly.

one of the nastiest aspects of these ideas, and attacks on homosexuals in general, is they are made with huge sweeping arguments to suggest that there is any link between sexual preference and pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc. it's a disgusting approach, and an untrue unfair characterization.

i'd expect a skeptics community to demand proof that a gay scout leader was any less able to lead a troop than a straight scout leader.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 08:41 AM

exactly.

one of the nastiest aspects of these ideas, and attacks on homosexuals in general, is they are made with huge sweeping arguments to suggest that there is any link between sexual preference and pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, etc. it's a disgusting approach, and an untrue unfair characterization.

i'd expect a skeptics community to demand proof that a gay scout leader was any less able to lead a troop than a straight scout leader.

I think you are getting confused by the arguements made by people here and the arguements repeated by people here made by others.

slingblade

25th September 2006, 09:49 AM

As a teen would you have felt confortable showering with a gay man?

I'm a woman, but in truth we always suspected our gym teacher was a lesbian. And it made no nevermind to me if she were in the showers or not.

For me, it was always the straight men I had to watch out for.

always.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 09:53 AM

I'm a woman, but in truth we always suspected our gym teacher was a lesbian. And it made no nevermind to me if she were in the showers or not.

For me, it was always the straight men I had to watch out for.

always.

But how would a gay man in there have made you feel? You covered every group but the one being asked for.(ok the most common groups but the one being asked for, we could bring in transexuals and make everything more complex)

Gwyn ap Nudd

25th September 2006, 11:32 AM

Why are people assuming that gay men will go after children?

Because homophobia is irrational.

The attitude we call "homophobia" is not the "old tradition" that many people think it is. It is only a little more than 100 years old, and didn't become a common attitude until much later.

Before that, the specific act described in the prohibitions in Leviticus was a crime, as were other similar acts proscribed by the same chapters of Leviticus between men and women for whom those acts were considered inappropriate. There was no greater stigma attached to being caught doing any of these acts, including the male-male act, than a mild act of thievery or other minor crime. Any act, whether between two persons of the same sex or of opposite sexes, other than the specific one prohibited by Leviticus was not a crime, although it may have been frowned on socially.

That changed in the late 19th century. At that time, there were still class differences in American society. One sub-class of the "gentle" (what we today would call the upper-upper-middle class) class was that of the "sporting gentleman." One of the sports that these "gentlemen" especially liked to engage in was wh*ring. But it was much more "sporting" if the girl were not already a professional. So they would seduce girls of the lower class, and even of the working class, and then abandon them to the streets. If the "gentleman" were feeling particularly generous or if the girl seemed likely to raise a fuss, he might pay her off. If the girls were resistant to his attempts at seduction, some of these "gentlemen" might resort to physical force (rape).

More respectable members of the "gentle" class, especially clergymen and politicians worried about their image started promoting laws protecting these girls, and were joined by the growing women's movements. (While Temperence and Sufferage were the main thrusts of these movements, they were not their only concern.)

Newspapers written for the "Sporting" class struck back. They gave their enemies a more terrifying foe to worry about. While the "sporting gentlemen" preyed on the girls of the less consequential classes, there was a group that was similarly preying on gentle class boys. The same boys that were the sons and heirs of the clergymen and politicians.

As with any great lie, there was just enough truth embedded to make it both credible and self-sustaining. Human nature being what it is, it wasn't to hard to find one or two cases where a sexual predator did meet the profile described by the "Sporting" newspapers. Thus was born the myth that all "sodomites" are child-rapists.

Of course, this lie only affected the "gentle" class directly. (Though the myth continues on its own.) A different tactic was necessary when the working class gained political power. The Oscar Wilde scandal helped there. Slowly class the mistrust of culture and of rich "dandies" was transformed into a contempt for "sissy-boys."

But it took Joe McCarthy and Roy Kohn to create the hysteria we call homophobia, and whose remnants are still seen today among the fundamentalists.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 11:45 AM

Why are people assuming that gay men will go after children?DUH! Because they're all paedophiles.

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 11:53 AM

Got me wondering about this from the kids viewpoint.

Consider that for example a PE teacher probably does from time to time have to be in the changing rooms (locker room I think for the USA) and there may be naked kids in there. If the PE teacher is a homosexual of the same gender and the kids know the PE teacher is homosexual is that fair for the kids?

And by "fair for the kids" I mean because I believe that it is considered wrong for example a female PE teacher to enter into a male childrens' changing rooms?

I assume of course that the female in the male changing room would of course not be interested in the kids in any improper manner but that the kids would be embarrassed is one of the reasons for such guidelines?That's actually exactly what I was trying to get at.

You wouldn't allow a man to just walk into the women's shower if he wanted to. Thus, when it comes to gays in exclusively male environments or asexual-type environments, or environments where people are supposed to be secluded from what might-be leering eyes...you have to take a second look at gay men or women being there amongst other men or women.

Any woman who needs to think about this needs to ask herself...would she be comfortable if men she didn't know could walk in on her in the shower?

If the Boy Scouts were supposed to be a co-ed environment...they wouldn't be the Boy Scouts. They'd just be the Scouts. And if you wanted to have a generic, non-gender-specific Scout organization...by all means boys, girls, gays or anyone else into it.

But by allowing gay men or boys into the Boy Scouts, you're creating a co-ed-type environment out of what is not supposed to be one.

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 12:00 PM

Why are people assuming that gay men will go after children?I personally am not. But would you want a straight man watching little girls change? It's just a matter of taste.

Likewise, by "gays shouldn't be in the Boy Scouts" I mean gay boys also.

And yes, this is obviously a purely hypothetical discussion...because there's no way you can prove that someone is gay or someone isn't.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 12:00 PM

But it took Joe McCarthy and Roy Kohn to create the hysteria we call homophobia, and whose remnants are still seen today among the fundamentalists.Plus many other sectors of society - homophobia knows no bounds. I know as many atheist homophobes as I do fundamental christians. (I obviously know a lot more atheists, so I'm not suggesting the ratios are similar.)

The trouble with Boy Scouts is the same as that of the catholic brotherhood. Because the jobs enable men to meet boys it attracted homophobes, both positions attract paedophiles. Automatic assumption by people is that a gay man is more likely than a married man to be sexually attracted to young boys. It may even be true, but I would have no book running on it.

There have been so many sexual assaults that opportunity for sexual predation must not be allowed to exist, which does mean that every adult male needs to be aware that he must be seen to be above scrutiny at all times. Harsh facts, but unavoidable. As long as all organisations develop strategies to ensure assaults don't take place, it doesn't matter whether he's gay, straight or a he-she. (are girls allowed in the Boy Scouts?)

If the end result of these strategies is that all men are made to feel as though they're potential sex fiends, tough titty. Let us know how black men have felt for the last millennium or two.

slingblade

25th September 2006, 12:00 PM

But how would a gay man in there have made you feel? You covered every group but the one being asked for.(ok the most common groups but the one being asked for, we could bring in transexuals and make everything more complex)

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I'm weaseling. I mean, how would I know how boys feel about gay men? I'm a girl.

To answer your question as honestly as possible, I would have been uncomfortable (read: terrified) because he's a man, and for me at that time in my life, all men were pedophiles as far as I knew. It seemed almost every man I ever encountered at least tried something. Gay probably wouldn't have entered into it for me. I wouldn't want any man in our locker room.

I didn't really care if my woman gym teachers were or weren't lesbians. It never occured to me that a teacher would...well, that teachers would. And most of my teachers were women.

Did I answer what you were asking that time? As a girl, women didn't bother me in the locker room, regardless of orientation. But a man would have, also regardless. Just anecdotal, of course, but my experience is partly what I base my opinion on.

Silly Green Monkey

25th September 2006, 12:00 PM

Are you introducing more genders, based on sexual orientation?
That's stil assuming that the homosexuals are after children. Have you even read the thread past the post you quoted?

Garrette

25th September 2006, 12:01 PM

That's actually exactly what I was trying to get at.

You wouldn't allow a man to just walk into the women's shower if he wanted to. Thus, when it comes to gays in exclusively male environments or asexual-type environments, or environments where people are supposed to be secluded from what might-be leering eyes...you have to take a second look at gay men or women being there amongst other men or women.

Any woman who needs to think about this needs to ask herself...would she be comfortable if men she didn't know could walk in on her in the shower?The two (gays not allowed in men's shower; men not allowed in women's shower) are not necessarily connected. You would have to demonstrate reasoning for the prohibitions for the link to work.

The only reason that creates the connection you're claiming is that the prohibition has to do with sexual arousal followed by predatory sexual behavior.

But the reason for keeping men out of the women's shower could be that opposite-gender observation of nudity is simply socially improper in the same vein that wearing a bikini to a funeral would be improper.

It could be that, in the case of gender-separation amoung children that societey has a desire to control the gender education of its children and does not want an uncontrolled exposure to the opposite sex.

The last two reasons are perhaps stretching it a bit but no more so than the one you're are implying exists.

Frankly, I think same-sex showers would, after a time of discomfort for the older generations, would go a long way to removing the unhealthy hang-ups about sex in the U.S.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 12:06 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I'm weaseling. I mean, how would I know how boys feel about gay men? I'm a girl.

I know, but as a teen how would it have made you feel to have a gay man in there when you where showering? I was asking you about yourself as a woman, not about boys. Sorry if that was not clear.

To answer your question as honestly as possible, I would have been uncomfortable (read: terrified) because he's a man, and for me at that time in my life, all men were pedophiles as far as I knew. It seemed almost every man I ever encountered at least tried something. Gay probably wouldn't have entered into it for me. I wouldn't want any man in our locker room.

Ah so it was sex not sexual orientation that was important.

I didn't really care if my woman gym teachers were or weren't lesbians. It never occured to me that a teacher would...well, that teachers would. And most of my teachers were women.

Did I answer what you were asking that time? As a girl, women didn't bother me in the locker room, regardless of orientation. But a man would have, also regardless. Just anecdotal, of course, but my experience is partly what I base my opinion on.

Yes, that is what I was wondering about. The point is that you cared about only the sex of the individual in makeing you unconfortable and not the individuals interest in you.

Me I spent enought time as partialy clothing optional summer camps that it was not a big deal.

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 12:08 PM

Interesting, and probably a defensible position. So would you support gay men being allowed into the girl scouts? And lesbian women into the boy scouts? I guess bisexuals are SOL. But on the other hand, asexuals are the ones, in this context, that would truly enjoy the best of both worlds.I know this will sound weird, but yes, if there was a way to "prove" who was gay and who wasn't...I would support gay men being allowed into the Girl Scouts. And lesbian women into the Boy Scouts. The problem of course is that there are separate Gender Roles in our society now and those scouts are supposed to prepare boys and girls for those gender roles, so a gay man learning how to cook and clean probably won't get him ready for the real world where he might be the breadwinner in a gay relationship.

But in the name of keeping some sanity...what I would actually favor would be a generic "Child Scouts" organization that doesn't segregate itself by gender, then it could be a normal co-ed environment and boys, girls, gay, straight or whatever would be in.

(and I know this is all hypothetical because we can never "prove" who is gay or straight)

egslim

25th September 2006, 12:11 PM

You wouldn't allow a man to just walk into the women's shower if he wanted to.
Ignoring the difference between a bath and a shower, in traditional Japanese baths that's exactly what people did. Both sexes used the same baths together.

Our objection against that is purely cultural, probably a leftover from Christian prudeness. We have a problem with it because as children we were taught to have a problem with it. That's what happened in Japan as well, post-1850.

Hence, if we don't teach our children to have a problem with gays/lesbians they won't.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 12:11 PM

That's actually exactly what I was trying to get at.

You wouldn't allow a man to just walk into the women's shower if he wanted to. Thus, when it comes to gays in exclusively male environments or asexual-type environments, or environments where people are supposed to be secluded from what might-be leering eyes...you have to take a second look at gay men or women being there amongst other men or women.

Any woman who needs to think about this needs to ask herself...would she be comfortable if men she didn't know could walk in on her in the shower?

If the Boy Scouts were supposed to be a co-ed environment...they wouldn't be the Boy Scouts. They'd just be the Scouts. And if you wanted to have a generic, non-gender-specific Scout organization...by all means boys, girls, gays or anyone else into it.

But by allowing gay men or boys into the Boy Scouts, you're creating a co-ed-type environment out of what is not supposed to be one.

You are making the assumption that it is only sexual interest that would make people uncomfortable. Would you feel more comfortable with a gay man or a lesbian woman in the shower with you?

Is being afraid of people ogling your man parts the issue or just the other sex being the issue?

Garrette

25th September 2006, 12:12 PM

I know this will sound weird, but yes, if there was a way to "prove" who was gay and who wasn't...I would support gay men being allowed into the Girl Scouts. And lesbian women into the Boy Scouts. The problem of course is that there are separate Gender Roles in our society now and those scouts are supposed to prepare boys and girls for those gender roles, so a gay man learning how to cook and clean probably won't get him ready for the real world where he might be the breadwinner in a gay relationship.

But in the name of keeping some sanity...what I would actually favor would be a generic "Child Scouts" organization that doesn't segregate itself by gender, then it could be a normal co-ed environment and boys, girls, gay, straight or whatever would be in.

(and I know this is all hypothetical because we can never "prove" who is gay or straight)So you would also not mind allowing gay men into the girls' shower and lesbian women into the boys' shower?

If not, I would like you to address my post two posts before yours.

Edited to add: ponderingturtle beat me to it.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 12:15 PM

I personally am not. But would you want a straight man watching little girls change? It's just a matter of taste.

Likewise, by "gays shouldn't be in the Boy Scouts" I mean gay boys also.

And yes, this is obviously a purely hypothetical discussion...because there's no way you can prove that someone is gay or someone isn't.Not only that, you've now entered the world of fantasy. Women teachers don't "watch little girls change"! Or is it to your "taste"? Strange choice of words.

I've been a parent helper on many school and kindergarten trips, and let me tell you, on the odd occasion a parent or teacher actually gets to see a child naked, it's because the child **** itself. Teachers and boy scout leaders don't stand around while kids get changed. the kids get changed on their own after age 3, so it's not even an issue.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 12:15 PM

The two (gays not allowed in men's shower; men not allowed in women's shower) are not necessarily connected. You would have to demonstrate reasoning for the prohibitions for the link to work.

The only reason that creates the connection you're claiming is that the prohibition has to do with sexual arousal followed by predatory sexual behavior.

But the reason for keeping men out of the women's shower could be that opposite-gender observation of nudity is simply socially improper in the same vein that wearing a bikini to a funeral would be improper.

You know that china has banned strippers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/24/chinese_funeral_clampdown/) at funeral's?

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 12:17 PM

Ignoring the difference between a bath and a shower, in traditional Japanese baths that's exactly what people did. Both sexes used the same baths together.

Our objection against that is purely cultural, probably a leftover from Christian prudeness. We have a problem with it because as children we were taught to have a problem with it. That's what happened in Japan as well, post-1850.

Hence, if we don't teach our children to have a problem with gays/lesbians they won't.

I thought that the roman baths became sexualy segregated before christianity had much of an effect on the culture. It is not an exclusively Christian thing, there are many cultures that have had that happen.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 12:18 PM

So you would also not mind allowing gay men into the girls' shower and lesbian women into the boys' shower?

If not, I would like you to address my post two posts before yours.

Edited to add: ponderingturtle beat me to it.

Victory is Mine!

Garrette

25th September 2006, 12:18 PM

You know that china has banned strippers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/24/chinese_funeral_clampdown/) at funeral's?I'm aware of it, yes.

Garrette

25th September 2006, 12:21 PM

Victory is Mine!Uh....I let you win. Out of sympathy.

Yeah. That's it. Sympathy.

---

Back to the OP and what ponderingturtle and eglsim have said (which just happens to coincide with what I myself have brilliantly stated...), it really does seem like nothing more than homophobia, both culturally and in this thread.

So long as the Boy Scouts remain private, they may choose to admit whom they see fit, but it wouldn't bother me a whit if they let gay scout leaders and gay scouts in.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 12:21 PM

Frankly, I think same-sex showers would, after a time of discomfort for the older generations, would go a long way to removing the unhealthy hang-ups about sex in the U.S.Ya can't do that!

Where in the hell is the US government going to get the funds to feed 16 million starving, unemployed therapists?

Garrette

25th September 2006, 12:32 PM

Ya can't do that!

Where in the hell is the US government going to get the funds to feed 16 million starving, unemployed therapists?Me, undoubtedly. I'm a mess already. I can't imagine the state I'll be in seeing nekkid wimmin every day...

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 12:32 PM

Ah so it was sex not sexual orientation that was important.I don't know if you mean sex or gender with that first "sex," but what she seemed pretty clearly to be that she was worried about people who made sexual advances at her. Gay men make sexual advances at other men in the same way men make sexual advances at women.

Why is she allowed to avoid the people who might make sexual advances while she's changing but straight men are not allowed to avoid the people (i.e. gay men) who might make sexual advances while THEY'RE changing?

(and just to answer beforehand...yes, this is hypothetical because we can't prove who's gay and who isn't...and no...I haven't recently had a scarring experience in the shower with a gay man. :) I just knew this was a discussion that would get people talking.)

Ignoring the difference between a bath and a shower, in traditional Japanese baths that's exactly what people did. Both sexes used the same baths together.Then I would have no issue with gay men or women being in those baths. Our society seems to prohibit those things based on sexual orientation or gender so I think we have a stickier situation.

You are making the assumption that it is only sexual interest that would make people uncomfortable. Would you feel more comfortable with a gay man or a lesbian woman in the shower with you?

Is being afraid of people ogling your man parts the issue or just the other sex being the issue?I would feel more comfortable with a lesbian woman.

People ogling my man parts would be the issue. A lesbian woman wouldn't be looking anyway. Penises aren't aesthetically pleasing.

So you would also not mind allowing gay men into the girls' shower and lesbian women into the boys' shower?

If not, I would like you to address my post two posts before yours.

Edited to add: ponderingturtle beat me to it.If we could 'prove' someone was gay, then I wouldn't mind allowing a gay man into the girls shower. What would he do there other then mind his business, get washed and leave?

Here's the post that I think you wanted me to address:

The two (gays not allowed in men's shower; men not allowed in women's shower) are not necessarily connected. You would have to demonstrate reasoning for the prohibitions for the link to work.

The only reason that creates the connection you're claiming is that the prohibition has to do with sexual arousal followed by predatory sexual behavior.I don't think the predatory sexual behavior is a necessary part of the prohibition. After all, it's a social no-no for for a woman to go into the men's shower also.

But the reason for keeping men out of the women's shower could be that opposite-gender observation of nudity is simply socially improper in the same vein that wearing a bikini to a funeral would be improper.But there's a reason the opposite-gender observation is socially improper. By and large, people don't like being judged or leered at...especially when in a situation where they have to expose what we've been taught are "private parts."

It could be that, in the case of gender-separation amoung children that societey has a desire to control the gender education of its children and does not want an uncontrolled exposure to the opposite sex.

The last two reasons are perhaps stretching it a bit but no more so than the one you're are implying exists.

Frankly, I think same-sex showers would, after a time of discomfort for the older generations, would go a long way to removing the unhealthy hang-ups about sex in the U.S.I have nothing to add or say in response to these last few points. But I did read them and I guess I agree.

Skeptic

25th September 2006, 12:34 PM

The Boy Scouts, and a private organization, can admit--or reject--anybody they want. But isn't there a confusion here between "gay" and "pedohphile"? Just because a man prefers sex with men doesn't mean he has any interest in sex with boys. Most heterosexuals have no interest in sex with girls, either.

Garrette

25th September 2006, 12:37 PM

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 12:45 PM

I don't know if you mean sex or gender with that first "sex," but what she seemed pretty clearly to be that she was worried about people who made sexual advances at her. Gay men make sexual advances at other men in the same way men make sexual advances at women.

No she clearly did not want any man even a gay man in the shower with her as a teen. She specificaly was going by sex(there are arguements that sex is physical and gender is social, but that is beyond the point of discussion here).

see
To answer your question as honestly as possible, I would have been uncomfortable (read: terrified) because he's a man, and for me at that time in my life, all men were pedophiles as far as I knew. It seemed almost every man I ever encountered at least tried something. Gay probably wouldn't have entered into it for me. I wouldn't want any man in our locker room.

She was most worried about heterosexual boys sure, but prefered homosexual women to homosexual men as well.

Why is she allowed to avoid the people who might make sexual advances while she's changing but straight men are not allowed to avoid the people (i.e. gay men) who might make sexual advances while THEY'RE changing?

She had no problem with gay women. It was entirely sex based not based on who would be interested in having sex with her.

(and just to answer beforehand...yes, this is hypothetical because we can't prove who's gay and who isn't...and no...I haven't recently had a scarring experience in the shower with a gay man. :) I just knew this was a discussion that would get people talking.)

The point is that in our culture body shyness is not solely based on sexual interest vs disinterest. Finding out what percentages of each hold would be interesting.

Then I would have no issue with gay men or women being in those baths. Our society seems to prohibit those things based on sexual orientation or gender so I think we have a stickier situation.

I would feel more comfortable with a lesbian woman.

THen you are different from slingblade

People ogling my man parts would be the issue. A lesbian woman wouldn't be looking anyway. Penises aren't aesthetically pleasing.

And if say a hetero woman was there, and not ogling you, how would you feel? It is the ogling that seem to be bothering you not their presence

If we could 'prove' someone was gay, then I wouldn't mind allowing a gay man into the girls shower. What would he do there other then mind his business, get washed and leave?

Ogle the other gay men of course. Of course withthe lesbians in the mens showers I am sure that there are parties of both sex's that would find this an advantagous situation.(the ammount of lesbian porn dirrected at men and homosexual fanfiction writen by women seem to support this arguement)
[quoet]
Here's the post that I think you wanted me to address:

I don't think the predatory sexual behavior is a necessary part of the prohibition. After all, it's a social no-no for for a woman to go into the men's shower also.
[/quote]
So?

But there's a reason the opposite-gender observation is socially improper. By and large, people don't like being judged or leered at...especially when in a situation where they have to expose what we've been taught are "private parts."

I have nothing to add or say in response to these last few points. But I did read them and I guess I agree.

The problem is the learing, which is a result of it being so uncommon.

slingblade

25th September 2006, 12:50 PM

It is known, isn't it, that women participate openly in Boy Scouting? Den mothers, hello? It isn't a purely male operation from that standpoint.

My dad was a scoutmaster for many years. My brother is an Eagle scout. I went on more than one scouting outing with them. I was molested more than once, too, by other Boy Scouts.

If we are assuming one reason the Boy Scouts is kept all-male and all-straight is to guard against molestation, then Den Mothers are right out as well, aren't they?

Are we also assuming that all-straight male scout leaders are totally uninterested in boys for sex? Is heterosexuality an absolute guarantee against...I dunno, call it perversion or aberrance?

Sorry if my personal experience colors this issue for me more than is healthy for logical debate.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 12:53 PM

It is known, isn't it, that women participate openly in Boy Scouting? Den mothers, hello? It isn't a purely male operation from that standpoint.

I am not so sure, that is cub scouts not boy scouts. But it is the same organization, but then again I thought explorer scouts where the same organization but they do let girls join.

So BSA might hold different standards at different levels.

My dad was a scoutmaster for many years. My brother is an Eagle scout. I went on more than one scouting outing with them. I was molested more than once, too, by other Boy Scouts.

I am sorry to hear that.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 12:54 PM

Most heterosexuals have no interest in sex with girls, either.Ooh, I've been waiting to do this, I feel like a real JREFer now:

Evidence?

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 12:57 PM

Ooh, I've been waiting to do this, I feel like a real JREFer now:

Evidence?

Well we would need to define girl for the purpose of this to make it clearer. And I would also think that many(most) adults do find some individuals below the age of consent(or at least some ages of consent) sexualy attractive. But there is the issue that just because you find someone sexualy attractive doesn't mean you will do anything with them.

slingblade

25th September 2006, 12:59 PM

Why is she allowed to avoid the people who might make sexual advances while she's changing but straight men are not allowed to avoid the people (i.e. gay men) who might make sexual advances while THEY'RE changing?

But I'm not, I wasn't. Like I said, in middle school we all assumed or suspected or thought, whatever, that our gym teacher was a lesbian. And I showered and changed with her in the locker room on a daily basis. I don't recall that any of us were bothered by her, or what we thought we knew about her.

As far as I knew, there was a gay, same-gendered teacher in my locker room, and I didn't mind.

I would have minded if a man had been there instead, even if I had known for certain he was as gay as gay could be. He's still a man, and I don't want him seeing my pink parts.

So I was not "allowed" to avoid people who might have made advances, as a lesbian teacher could certainly have made advances to me.

slingblade

25th September 2006, 01:15 PM

I am not so sure, that is cub scouts not boy scouts. But it is the same organization, but then again I thought explorer scouts where the same organization but they do let girls join.

So BSA might hold different standards at different levels.

It's all the same thing. I was a Bluebird and a Camp Fire Girl. I wasn't a Brownie, but I was a Girl Scout for a little while, too. And I was involved with the whole Boy Scouts thing as I said before.

The various names are just age divisions, bildungsroman, coming-of-age markers. You can join at any point, so you don't have to be a Cub Scout first to be a Boy Scout. The co-ed version of the Explorers came about in 1971. But it's all the same organization.

I am sorry to hear that.

'S okay. It just affects my thinking on topics like this, that's all, and I feel it sometimes necessary to explain that.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 01:15 PM

But there is the issue that just because you find someone sexualy attractive doesn't mean you will do anything with them.No, it doesn't mean you will, but it might mean you might, given the opportunity.

egslim

25th September 2006, 01:19 PM

Our society seems to prohibit those things based on sexual orientation or gender
I disagree. I think they are prohibited based on cultural tradition. Traditions don't necessarily make sense, nor do they have to be internally consistent. Hence there is no need to distinguish people based on sexual orientation. On the contrary, doing so would unnecessarily complicate our society.

You're trying to apply logic to an area where none exists: Force of habit.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 01:20 PM

It's all the same thing. I was a Bluebird and a Camp Fire Girl. I wasn't a Brownie, but I was a Girl Scout for a little while, too. And I was involved with the whole Boy Scouts thing as I said before.

The various names are just age divisions, bildungsroman, coming-of-age markers. You can join at any point, so you don't have to be a Cub Scout first to be a Boy Scout. The co-ed version of the Explorers came about in 1971. But it's all the same organization.
My point was that just because someone could be a den mother does not mean that they could lead a boy scout troop. My mother was a den mother for something like 7 years. In my group we also had the twin sister of one of the boys always show up. She was also the valedictorian in high school later.

My cubscout den was odd for the number of very bright people in it.

'S okay. It just affects my thinking on topics like this, that's all, and I feel it sometimes necessary to explain that.
Ok, it did get me thinking on when childhood meanness and childhood interest in sex move into molestation. Of course not all boyscouts are young enough for that to make alot of sense.

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 01:23 PM

EGarrett: Your last response was a pleasant surprise. I can't really disagree with the substance, but I disagree with the conclusion/solution.

If it is given that the prohibition on some folks from a shower is simply culturally-based, and that prohibition poses problems (i.e., what do we do about non-predatory gay men who need a shower), would it not be better in the long run to address the cultural issue itself than to keep slapping more addenda on to it in the same vein the IRS keeps slapping on regulations to fix loopholes?

Throw the whole damned thing out and start over. Get rid of the cultural hang-ups, and there goes your problem.I only have a few possible solutions in mind.

First, what you said, get rid of the cultural hang-ups so we're desensitized to the sight of each other's crotches.

Second, simply put stalls in every public shower (and dear god, dividers between every urinal and toilet)...because I can't figure out any way that we can have a public shower where SOMEONE isn't exposed to leering.

And third...in regards to the Boy Scouts...we would introduce a non-gender specific Scouts organization so we don't have to divide boys, girls, gay or straight...we can lump them all together.

After all, not caring is the first step to not judging.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 01:26 PM

Sorry if my personal experience colors this issue for me more than is healthy for logical debate.I think that the fact your thinking is cloured by experience is both helpful and important in this healthy debate, because it is the issue in hand. While it doesn't relate to the gay boy scout OP, the opinion of someone who has been on the receiving end of molestation is welcomed, (although saddening, as always) because without having to resort to statistics, I'd venture that an enormous majority of sexual assaults against children are against girls and most of them are opportunistic.

Most molesters - of both sexes - are male, and I'm pretty confident that most homophobes are male as well.

Skeptic

25th September 2006, 01:27 PM

Why is she allowed to avoid the people who might make sexual advances while she's changing but straight men are not allowed to avoid the people (i.e. gay men) who might make sexual advances while THEY'RE changing?

So the solution is, I suppose, to have gay men change in the women's locker room. Though that might increase the number of gay men in the population to, er, 95%-98% or so...

More seriously, is this really an issue? I am not saying inapropriate sexual advances by gays or lesbians never happen, but I've never heard of anybody who actually experienced such an advance. I just don't see who in his right mind would do it. Even if one ignores the fact that the locker room is hardly the appropriate place for sexual advances by anybody, if you're gay, just about the last place you'd make such an advance is in the locker room where most people are heterosexual. Wouldn't you go to a gay bar, for example? And in any case, if it's true that gay people can tell if someone else is also gay (I have no idea whether this old urban legend is true) then the problem is moot as far as heterosexuals are concerned.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 01:33 PM

Hmm, I am wondering about something, has anyone who is gay actualy commented in this thread?

bigred

25th September 2006, 01:38 PM

Gwyn ap Nudd

25th September 2006, 01:49 PM

But it took Joe McCarthy and Roy Kohn to create the hysteria we call homophobia, and whose remnants are still seen today among the fundamentalists.
Plus many other sectors of society - homophobia knows no bounds. I know as many atheist homophobes as I do fundamental christians. (I obviously know a lot more atheists, so I'm not suggesting the ratios are similar.)

You are right, of course. Just because someone is not a Fundamentalist does not make him immune to illogic in other areas.

That's the problem with cutting and pasting a resonse I made in a different forum and a slightly different context. Sometimes I wind up with a sentence or a paragraph out of context. In the other thread, I'd previously made a distinction between a "fundamentalist" attitude toward homosexuality, and being a religious "Fundamentalist."

Actually, I should have left off the last two paragraphs entirely, since my post was intended merely to be an answer to CFLarsen's question "Why are people assuming that gay men will go after children?"

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 01:50 PM

No she clearly did not want any man even a gay man in the shower with her as a teen. She specificaly was going by sex(there are arguements that sex is physical and gender is social, but that is beyond the point of discussion here).But you quoted it yourself, she specifically said that she was scared that they were pedophiles or they would "try something." I'm not misquoting her...that's sexual orientation. The only reason she wouldn't have been comfortable with a gay man was because she wasn't aware he was gay.

And if say a hetero woman was there, and not ogling you, how would you feel? It is the ogling that seem to be bothering you not their presenceThe way things are in our society, the sight of another person's privates ALWAYS has some response in our head. As a straight man, if I see a pair of breasts, I'm either turned on or turned off. There isn't much indifference just because it's a mini-shock to see them. So the only way I would know she wasn't leering or disgusted by me would be if I was certain she wasn't looking at all. In that case, I wouldn't be bothered. But that's really the same thing as her not being there. Isn't it?

If we are assuming one reason the Boy Scouts is kept all-male and all-straight is to guard against molestation, then Den Mothers are right out as well, aren't they?I don't know what exactly Den Mothers do. I've been a YMCA Camp Counselor, and all the kids had to get changed to go to the pool...and the kids aren't allowed to be unsupervised so at times I had to accompany the boys into the changing room...where there were other old, naked men walking around. Believe me...it's awkward and stressful enough WITHOUT sex being involved in any way.

Are we also assuming that all-straight male scout leaders are totally uninterested in boys for sex?Well, yes. That's would be the definition of "all-straight"...

Is heterosexuality an absolute guarantee against...I dunno, call it perversion or aberrance?No, it isn't. You can't ever totally prevent that sort of thing...but we as a society seem to make certain efforts to discourage it or avoid it where we can. The gender separation is one of those things.

My dad was a scoutmaster for many years. My brother is an Eagle scout. I went on more than one scouting outing with them. I was molested more than once, too, by other Boy Scouts.I would ask you about it, but I'm sure it's too personal to discuss and I'm sorry to hear it.

Gwyn ap Nudd

25th September 2006, 01:55 PM

Hmm, I am wondering about something, has anyone who is gay actualy commented in this thread?

Just because someone does not begin a post "I'm gay, and this is what I think.," does not mean (s)he is not gay. :rolleyes:

I know for certain that at least one poster on this thread is gay. :jaw-dropp

But that poster believes that a rational answer is more valuable in this forum than an emotional "insight.":teacher:

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 01:55 PM

So the solution is, I suppose, to have gay men change in the women's locker room. Though that might increase the number of gay men in the population to, er, 95%-98% or so...I tried to stress repeatedly that this is a hypothetical discussion...because we can't prove who's gay and who isn't.

Oh there you go, throwing rationality n stuff into it. The PC Nazis have probably ripped you to shreds by now. Homophobe!!!I started this knowing full well that I'd be the target of that type of stuff. It's worth it to get a discussion going.

I don't consider myself a homophobe any more then a woman is a heterophobe in regards to men. There are certainly situations where I'd be uncomfortable around a gay man (like if I had my privates out for some reason)...but I think gay people should be allowed the same equivalent rights as everyone else. (by equivalent, I mean not being allowed to go into the shower when naked people of your sexual interest have to be there)

Marquis de Carabas

25th September 2006, 01:56 PM

Hmm, I am wondering about something, has anyone who is gay actualy commented in this thread?
Yes.

slingblade

25th September 2006, 01:56 PM

I think that the fact your thinking is cloured by experience is both helpful and important in this healthy debate, because it is the issue in hand. While it doesn't relate to the gay boy scout OP,

I am arguing it does relate, because I think the problem some people have with gays in the boy Scouts is a sexual one. They're afraid gays would molest the boys, or gay boys would hit on the others. I would like it explained to me if there is some other reason(s) why gays shouldn't be in the scouts aside from the organization's prohibition. I'm trying to determine if the prohibition itself is reasonable.

I maintain that being gay doesn't guarantee or assume or preclude (whatever) pedophilia. A gay man is no more likely to be a pedophile than a straight man, in my opinion, and as apparently backed up by studies. (I'll get examples for you later if I need to, but I haven't time right now--I'm procrastinating on another writing assignment. :()

So, is the sexual issue the reason the Boy Scouts forbid openly gay males from joining? Is it the reason some people argue this is proper? If so, it's an invalid argument, IMO. If there are other reasons, aside from any sexual quotient, I'd like to see them.

the opinion of someone who has been on the receiving end of molestation is welcomed, (although saddening, as always) because without having to resort to statistics, I'd venture that an enormous majority of sexual assaults against children are against girls and most of them are opportunistic.

I won't agree or disagree with that, because I've been taught that we don't know much about boys being molested, because we don't know how many simply don't tell. Apparently, we have an idea it's the majority of them. I got that info in a classroom; I don't have any evidence.

Most molesters - of both sexes - are male, and I'm pretty confident that most homophobes are male as well.

Again, we assume that because of reporting bias (is that the right term?)
We're seeing a LOT more women teachers being charged with child-sexual crimes these days, I've noticed. It just makes me wonder how often it's actually happened in the past, and we just aren't aware of it. I don't think female molesters are a relatively new phenomenon, but rather that reporting them has become one. I could be wrong. There could be an increase in women offenders. But I still don't really think it's a new problem.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 02:04 PM

Just because someone does not begin a post "I'm gay, and this is what I think.," does not mean (s)he is not gay. :rolleyes:

I know for certain that at least one poster on this thread is gay. :jaw-dropp

But that poster believes that a rational answer is more valuable in this forum than an emotional "insight.":teacher:

But it does give certain perspectives, just like slingblades sex gives certain perspectives on interactions in showers and the like.

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 02:06 PM

Again, we assume that because of reporting bias (is that the right term?)I'm going to try and find some details, because you're certainly right about a lower percentage of boys reporting assault, but I'm sure that whatever shows up one of the things will be that a very small minority of offenders are women. I suspect that the recent publicity is nothing more than that - publicity. The offence has always been there, just covert.

And I'm with you on the gay men - I don't believe there is any greater propensity for paedophilia amongst gay men at all. The very few cases I do know of where boys have been molested have all had married male perpetrators.

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 02:07 PM

Hmm, I am wondering about something, has anyone who is gay actualy commented in this thread?I like it better that we don't know. It lets us focus entirely on the rationality and not on any perceived biases we may or may not have.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 02:15 PM

I like it better that we don't know. It lets us focus entirely on the rationality and not on any perceived biases we may or may not have.

Admitedly the sex of many of the posters is not known to me, let alone their sexual preference. But it can be useful at for determining their point of view.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 02:17 PM

I'm going to try and find some details, because you're certainly right about a lower percentage of boys reporting assault, but I'm sure that whatever shows up one of the things will be that a very small minority of offenders are women. I suspect that the recent publicity is nothing more than that - publicity. The offence has always been there, just covert.

And I'm with you on the gay men - I don't believe there is any greater propensity for paedophilia amongst gay men at all. The very few cases I do know of where boys have been molested have all had married male perpetrators.

Then there are issues of actual paedophilia vs sexual contact with under aged individuals. Not all abuse of underage individuals would count as paedophilia.

Hell even if both individuals are of age there is still issues with the leader/student relationships(given the rather broad differences in age of consent internationaly this can be a real issue)

The Atheist

25th September 2006, 02:18 PM

Just because someone does not begin a post "I'm gay, and this is what I think.," does not mean (s)he is not gay.WHAT?? You mean gay guys and lesbian women are going around this forum, posting, and NOT letting on to everyone that they're queer?

New rule.

All posters must henceforth commence posts with a statement of sexual preference.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 02:21 PM

WHAT?? You mean gay guys and lesbian women are going around this forum, posting, and NOT letting on to everyone that they're queer?

New rule.

All posters must henceforth commence posts with a statement of sexual preference.

And lets not forget acutal sex. Remember that on the internet if two teen cheerleaders are having an online sexual encounter the odds are better than even that neither of them is actualy a teen or a woman.

steverino

25th September 2006, 02:49 PM

More seriously, is this really an issue? I am not saying inapropriate sexual advances by gays or lesbians never happen, but I've never heard of anybody who actually experienced such an advance. I just don't see who in his right mind would do it. Even if one ignores the fact that the locker room is hardly the appropriate place for sexual advances by anybody, if you're gay, just about the last place you'd make such an advance is in the locker room where most people are heterosexual.

Um, wrong.

When I was between ages 17-22 I was hit on by gays in locker rooms and other non-gay-specific social gathering spots. Places like art school, and anywhere around the Boys Town neighborhood where gays might take a chance hitting on a free-spirit like I was at that age. It did not bother me except for the fact that I was indeed a heterosexual and couldn't catch the eyes of any women to save my life.:eek:

Marquis de Carabas

25th September 2006, 03:03 PM

When I was between ages 17-22 I was hit on by gays in locker rooms and other non-gay-specific social gathering spots. Places like art school... [emphasis mine --MdC]
Please try to make your contradictions less blatant in the future.

Darat

25th September 2006, 03:11 PM

Hmm, I am wondering about something, has anyone who is gay actualy commented in this thread?

Yes.

AWPrime

25th September 2006, 03:17 PM

Upchurch

25th September 2006, 03:32 PM

I can't imagine the state I'll be in seeing nekkid wimmin every day...
I can and I can assure you the world would be a very different place if the driving force behind the internet and other technologies suddenly went away.

Obsequious

25th September 2006, 03:37 PM

Maybe I'm alone in feeling as I do, maybe not; a few people have touched on it but no one has really made it the main point of an argument.

I don't know if it's different in the boys' locker room, but it was fear of criticism and not fear of sexual advances that made the prospect of showering in front others so frightening.

If it is the same for boys, then the sexual orientation of the teacher (or fellow student) is not of primary importance. Even assuming every person present is heterosexual, they will still be uncomfortable.

If they're worried about actual offense rates against the students/Scouts/whatever, then real data is required and the feelings of the students become irrelevant to decisions made for safety reasons.

One could go on to argue that, safety and ordinary discomfort aside, there is the added worry about unwanted sexual advances in a vulnerable setting, but it's been my experience (as a chick) that this is so overshadowed by the primary concern of harsh judgment by persons of any orientation that it might cross my mind once per school year. And this with a female gym teacher widely believed by the student body to be a lesbian, as it was known that she had lived with another female teacher for something like 18 years. I never heard any concerns from other students about her being in the locker room while the girls were changing. Of course, my schools never budgeted enough time for post-gym showers for anyone, so showering wasn't an issue. Maybe it's different than just changing clothes.

As far as I'm aware, the Boy Scouts exclude homosexuals because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and the debate arises because they have some access to public funds through the government. I could easily be mistaken and I have no sources to quote, so please correct me if I am wrong.

steverino

25th September 2006, 04:26 PM

Please try to make your contradictions less blatant in the future.

Well, I did NOT take the fashion design course down the hall.:D

stamenflicker

25th September 2006, 04:36 PM

As a man, I have accompanied my daughter into changing rooms (although I find girls clothes-shopping mind-numbingly boring and let Mom do that chore as often as I can) and have baby-sat girls by myself. I managed to do this without molesting anyone.

I believe the general consensus of the scientific community is that gay does not equal pedophile, and that while we prefer that the child be accompanied into the changing room by the parent of the same gender, it’s not really because we fear the child will be molested as much as it is for the comfort of other people using the changing rooms.

Well would you let me as a heterosexual male be your 14-year daughter's cabin counselor for a week at a camp, with a cabin full of other 13 and 14 year old girls? Would you allow me to use the same shower facility at camp that they use? To accompany them to the changing rooms before entering the swimming pool?

Why not?

Wheezebucket

25th September 2006, 05:31 PM

Seriously, what is the is all this retarded shower business. If you're THAT worried that the school hired a gay, child molesting, freak of a gym teacher who can't but rape everyone he sees at the sight of them naked - then put up a cubicle wall or something. Bam, now his dangerous gay tendencies will be thwarted for another day...but wait...it's almost swim time!!!!

Ridiculous.

I wager, and I have no evidence to back this up (but I will put money on it), that there's a much BIGGER threat from heterosexual child molestors in general.

Wheezebucket

25th September 2006, 05:34 PM

Well would you let me as a heterosexual male be your 14-year daughter's cabin counselor for a week at a camp, with a cabin full of other 13 and 14 year old girls? Would you allow me to use the same shower facility at camp that they use? To accompany them to the changing rooms before entering the swimming pool?

Why not?

When I was in boyscouts the counselors *never* showered with the boys. What the hell kind of sick community do you live in?

And no, I wouldn't let you if you were just some strange guy with no affiliation to the girl scouts who showed up to a meeting and said "yeah, I'll go". More likely you'd be a *parent* of one of the girls, and so yes - I probably wouldn't mind.

In school and in scouts, nobody ever accompanied kids into the changing rooms and watched them change. They stood at doors, looked at the wall, etc. Just to make sure things were safe (again, in my experience). These seem like perfectly acceptable solutions to solve to Ravenous Raping Gays epidemic.

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 05:53 PM

In school and in scouts, nobody ever accompanied kids into the changing rooms and watched them change. They stood at doors, looked at the wall, etc. Just to make sure things were safe (again, in my experience). These seem like perfectly acceptable solutions to solve to Ravenous Raping Gays epidemic.As a camp counselor, when I had to accompany boys to the changing room for the pool...I looked at the wall as much as I could. But in society, we generally don't go by the "honor system" when it comes to peeping toms or anything that might come off that way.

What I mean is, as a guy I'm not supposed to go in the girl's shower while the girls are in there...no man is. We don't rely on them having the taste to go in and not to look.

Checkmite

25th September 2006, 06:30 PM

Wheezebucket

25th September 2006, 06:35 PM

In what situations? At what age level are you requiring these girls to be directly supervised? Surely you can find ONE person on this Earth not to be tempted to get innapropriate with a 6 year old girl for the short time he has to spend in the locker room with her. And at 13 or 14 it's hardly necessary for a grown man to stand IN the room with them. They didn't do it at either of the highschools I went to, and again (though I'm admittedly not sure) I'd bet most schools operate that way.

There is no reasonable argument for gays not being allowed near children in a work capacity. For child molestors, sure, for rapists and murderers and car salesmen, absolutely - but not for someone who just likes to get off a little differently than you.

steverino

25th September 2006, 06:40 PM

There is no reasonable argument for gays not being allowed near children in a work capacity. For child molestors, sure, for rapists and murderers and car salesmen, absolutely.

What about lawyers?

:p

Wheezebucket

25th September 2006, 06:42 PM

I think some people are proceeding from false assumptions. First of all, kids don't like having to be naked around other people anyway. In a situation where a kid is for all intents and purposes forced to undress in front of other people - taking away that control over his/her own personal space - it's stressful enough without any "sexual" issues thrown in. It has nothing to do with homophobia at all, it's a simple matter of privacy, and I'm halfway amazed that people think a kid should be taught to not be uncomfortable in the face of such a violation of privacy and control over himself, however unavoidable - but anyway.

Adding the sex problem just compounds the issue. A boy who knows his gym teacher is gay is not going to want to undress and shower around that guy. It has nothing to do with age difference or any perception that "gay people are pedophiles"; kids don't think that way, they don't perceive themselves as "children" versus adults. They just think in terms of gender - they think of themselves as "guys". "The gym teacher is a male who is sexually attracted to other males, and I'm a male - problem." It's a simple two-plus-two thing for them. And while it is invariably crucial for children to learn things like tolerance and acceptance of things like homosexuality, I think it's fairly clear that the way to not teach them that value is by forcing them strip and shower in front of gay people. Come on, guys.

I haven't been arguing that at all. In fact, I agree with you - getting naked around other kids and/or heterosexual adults is more than stressful enough without bringing sex into it. But I don't understand all this talk of adults hanging around naked kids in the locker room all the time - it just doesn't seem to happen like that, and for good reason. A gay man can stand outside of a door just as well as a straight man.

And you're absolutely right about the perception problem, but it shouldn't ever come up in a professional capacity. If a hetersexual coach talked about HIS sexual preference with a student I would fire him on the spot. And for the age groups that need to be directly supervised, it would be a complete non-issue.

So ok, if you're talking about some comedic overly exaggerated cartoon gay guy who's flinging around dildos in a highschool lockerroom and talking about all the guys he made out with last night, then yes - I would fire him. And the same goes for a straight man whipping around copies of Hustler and talkin' about the cans on the broad he met at the auto show. I would also fire a guy dressed in a vampire outfit talking about all the blood he was drinking the night before, or a doberman pincher, or George Bush. But that's not reality.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2006, 07:16 PM

EGarrett

25th September 2006, 08:47 PM

You clearly have not spent much time around small children. That is a learned responce.But it's a response nonetheless...which to me means we're better off keeping it straight, so to speak, in the locker room unless or until we stop instilling that response in people.

Checkmite

25th September 2006, 09:49 PM

I haven't been arguing that at all. In fact, I agree with you - getting naked around other kids and/or heterosexual adults is more than stressful enough without bringing sex into it. But I don't understand all this talk of adults hanging around naked kids in the locker room all the time - it just doesn't seem to happen like that, and for good reason. A gay man can stand outside of a door just as well as a straight man.

I was planning on addressing this issue when I posted it, but for some reason I didn't. I think the pizza showed up or something. But you are quite right; I don't remember any of my gym teachers ever entering the locker room whilst showering and changing was going on, in all my years of school.

And you're absolutely right about the perception problem, but it shouldn't ever come up in a professional capacity. If a hetersexual coach talked about HIS sexual preference with a student I would fire him on the spot. And for the age groups that need to be directly supervised, it would be a complete non-issue.

I most definitely agree. My argument was geared more towards the people who seem to be saying that in a situation with an (apparently hypothetical) openly gay gym teacher being in a position to actively observe kids taking showers, there's something wrong with the kids if they're uncomfortable with that situation.

stamenflicker

25th September 2006, 10:43 PM

When I was in boyscouts the counselors *never* showered with the boys. What the hell kind of sick community do you live in?

I merely asked if it would be appropriate for me to use the same shower facility. The camp we attend has girls and boys showers. Each room has 3-4 individual shower stalls. And yeah, sometimes counselors and boys are in there at the same time.

So are you telling me then that a homosexual counselor in my situation should be forced to shower at a separate time?

And no, I wouldn't let you if you were just some strange guy with no affiliation to the girl scouts who showed up to a meeting and said "yeah, I'll go". More likely you'd be a *parent* of one of the girls, and so yes - I probably wouldn't mind.

And when the girls start changing, should I leave the room? Are the girls going to be as comfortable as you are with me in the room? Doesn't their opinion matter?

And It's not like attractiveness or sexuality falls on a hard line... well except in the law books. It's a spectrum... some 14 year old girls are more developed than others. Some are beginning to look like young women. Can you really trust a male counselor to always look the other way?

In school and in scouts, nobody ever accompanied kids into the changing rooms and watched them change. They stood at doors, looked at the wall, etc. Just to make sure things were safe (again, in my experience). These seem like perfectly acceptable solutions to solve to Ravenous Raping Gays epidemic.

Well I'm certainly not one to say gays should be excluded from scouts because they might rape all the boys. But I would be the first to say that were I a sleep-in counselor of post-pubescent girls the entire tone and feel of the event would take a turn for the worse... and it has nothing at all to do with some risk of me raping them.

It has everything to do with orientation. Everything.

egslim

26th September 2006, 03:35 AM

But it's a response nonetheless...which to me means we're better off keeping it straight, so to speak, in the locker room unless or until we stop instilling that response in people.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? The way we stop instilling that response in people is if we stop paying attention to the (non-)issue in the first place.

Checkmite

26th September 2006, 05:18 AM

The way we stop instilling that response in people is if we stop paying attention to the (non-)issue in the first place.

After all, that approach has certainly worked so well when it comes to eliminating racism in America...

egslim

26th September 2006, 06:09 AM

After all, that approach has certainly worked so well when it comes to eliminating racism in America...
I'm pretty sure it has. Did racism increase or decrease after the seggregation laws were repealed?

Note I used the words "stop paying attention". That's not what the PC crowd is doing, when they campaign to replace "blacks" with "African Americans". They are actually doing the inverse, focussing their attention on a (non-)issue instead of ignoring it.

It's like a child going to the dentist. If you tell it every five minutes to not be afraid, it'll grow up scared. If you treat the event like any normal trip, the child won't care.

ponderingturtle

26th September 2006, 07:06 AM

But it's a response nonetheless...which to me means we're better off keeping it straight, so to speak, in the locker room unless or until we stop instilling that response in people.

Or we as individuals get over that responce.

My view might be shaded by going to a partialy clothing optional summer camp, but it is certainly possible for most people to get over such things. I mean the changing for swimming thing is just odd as most swimming was done naked. The showers did not have 4 walls and such.

And that is to say nothing of say having naked councelors and campers embrace at an all boys camp.(entirely non sexual)

ponderingturtle

26th September 2006, 07:10 AM

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? The way we stop instilling that response in people is if we stop paying attention to the (non-)issue in the first place.

Exactly you have to stop telling the kids "men can not look at a naked women and be able to think about anything but sex". It is entirely a learned behavoir and atempts to cater to it are propetuating the behavior.

Zep

26th September 2006, 07:20 AM

There are certain activities and environments where people are separated due to sexual privacy issues. Bathrooms for example.

Allowing people with a sexual interest into a private environment that is supposed to be asexual can cause problems.

Just like men generally aren't allowed to accompany girls to changing rooms or to babysit girls alone...gay men shouldn't be allowed into the Boy Scouts.

I am for homosexual people having every other right that we can allow though, such as marriage. But not ones where we regulate by sexual preference or gender/privacy.OK, then. Let's say this is going to be enforced.

So how do you "test" for gay-ness? Is it 20 Questions Only A Hetero Can Answer Right And Homos Can't? Eugenic skull measurements? Measure the pitch of squeals? Something like an allergic skin-prick test?* How foolproof are these tests at weeding them out?

And is there a "scale" of gay-ness? For example, can someone who is 50% gay attend only every second Scouts meeting? Or is someone 100% gay or 100% straight?

I look forward with alacrity to any sensible response.

*Yes, that was a deliberate pun.

ponderingturtle

26th September 2006, 07:34 AM

OK, then. Let's say this is going to be enforced.

So how do you "test" for gay-ness?

This you can actually do, I believe the mechanism is a paper ring test to measure sexual response to various erotic images.

I remember hearing a doctor discussing his research into male arousal patterns and interestingly he found that men who self identified as bisexual had the same measured arousal pattern as homosexual men.

Zep

26th September 2006, 07:37 AM

This you can actually do, I believe the mechanism is a paper ring test to measure sexual response to various erotic images.

I remember hearing a doctor discussing his research into male arousal patterns and interestingly he found that men who self identified as bisexual had the same measured arousal pattern as homosexual men.So how reliable is this test? Is it standardised? At least enough to apply it to Boy Scout (or, indeed, any child supervision role) applicants?

I mean, are these the sort of hoops you want them to go through?

ponderingturtle

26th September 2006, 07:47 AM

So how reliable is this test? Is it standardised? At least enough to apply it to Boy Scout (or, indeed, any child supervision role) applicants?

I mean, are these the sort of hoops you want them to go through?

I am not too farmilier with the exact details, but I was pointing out that tests are available.

Earthborn

26th September 2006, 08:08 AM

So how reliable is this test?About as reliable as a polygraph. Not very. (http://skepdic.com/penilep.html)

Is it standardised?Not at all.

bigred

26th September 2006, 08:15 AM

Great in theory but it would never fly....(ie be accepted)

Obviously there's no perfect solution to "identify gays." I think self-admission would cover most situations, but of course there are bound to be a few who try to "sneak in" because they think it's their right blah blah ad nauseum. Offhand not sure how that should be handled (either preventively or after the fact)...

Zep

26th September 2006, 08:18 AM

I am not too farmilier with the exact details, but I was pointing out that tests are available.Understood.

But think of the application process for camp counsellor if it becomes part of the selection process.

"Here. Drop your clothes, put your **** in this ring, and look at these pictures."

PS. I'm a bit boggled as to the equivalent test for lesbianism... Any hints? ;)

ponderingturtle

26th September 2006, 08:37 AM

Understood.

But think of the application process for camp counsellor if it becomes part of the selection process.

"Here. Drop your clothes, put your **** in this ring, and look at these pictures."

PS. I'm a bit boggled as to the equivalent test for lesbianism... Any hints? ;)

Well there are some studies of blood flow, and I have heard of studies being done to see how sexual arousal correletes to their monthly cycle. That would probably be even less reliable though.

These might be poor tools for such uses but they might be useful in studying human sexuality. The MRI has been useful as well.

Terry

26th September 2006, 09:20 AM

I remember hearing a doctor discussing his research into male arousal patterns and interestingly he found that men who self identified as bisexual had the same measured arousal pattern as homosexual men.

From which the popular conclusion was "there is no such thing as a bisexual man". Which leads me to wonder whether I'm lying or merely mistaken when I say that I have had and enjoyed sex with a female partner.

ponderingturtle

26th September 2006, 09:25 AM

From which the popular conclusion was "there is no such thing as a bisexual man". Which leads me to wonder whether I'm lying or merely mistaken when I say that I have had and enjoyed sex with a female partner.

That was not at all what the researcher said. His point was that there is not a bisexual arousal pattern, and explicitly not about a bisexual behavior pattern.

It is an interesting scientific point and might lead to interesting and useful knowledge about the orrigions of male homosexuality and bisexuality.

Should it be taken to mean more than the behavior of some heterosexual men who for money act in gay porn movies?

Upchurch

26th September 2006, 10:53 AM

From which the popular conclusion was "there is no such thing as a bisexual man". Which leads me to wonder whether I'm lying or merely mistaken when I say that I have had and enjoyed sex with a female partner.
One of my favorite bisexual euphamisms is that there is only the Blue Team and the Yellow Team. And you're playing on the Green Team.

EGarrett

26th September 2006, 10:59 AM

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? The way we stop instilling that response in people is if we stop paying attention to the (non-)issue in the first place.I'm not sure how I'd be contradicting myself. Unless or until we remove any interest in seeing naked people, gay men should (hypothetically) be subject to some of the same restrictions as straight men are in regards to the object of their sexual desire.

OH, okay, having just read Joshua's response to yours, I think I see what you were getting at. You might've misread my point...you think the "response" I was referring to was homophobia. No, the response I was referring was the shame/horniness response at seeing naked people of the desired sex, or being seen naked by a stranger who desires your sex.

Or we as individuals get over that responce.I have to admit, I got the mental image of you walking into a women's shower then defiantly telling them to "get over it" when they call for the police or try to cover their naked bodies. You know that's funny.

Anyway, I think telling people to "get over it," isn't an easy fix.

My view might be shaded by going to a partialy clothing optional summer camp, but it is certainly possible for most people to get over such things. I mean the changing for swimming thing is just odd as most swimming was done naked. The showers did not have 4 walls and such.

And that is to say nothing of say having naked councelors and campers embrace at an all boys camp.(entirely non sexual)Are you sure it was entirely non-sexual?

OK, then. Let's say this is going to be enforced.

So how do you "test" for gay-ness? Is it 20 Questions Only A Hetero Can Answer Right And Homos Can't? Eugenic skull measurements? Measure the pitch of squeals? Something like an allergic skin-prick test?* How foolproof are these tests at weeding them out?

And is there a "scale" of gay-ness? For example, can someone who is 50% gay attend only every second Scouts meeting? Or is someone 100% gay or 100% straight?

I look forward with alacrity to any sensible response.Look backward for the sensible response. I stressed it repeatedly in most of my posts on the previous page.

ponderingturtle

26th September 2006, 11:13 AM

I'm not sure how I'd be contradicting myself. Unless or until we remove any interest in seeing naked people, gay men should (hypothetically) be subject to some of the same restrictions as straight men are in regards to the object of their sexual desire.

Got it, midrift tops are not illegal as well as all clothing that men find atractive on women.

OH, okay, having just read Joshua's response to yours, I think I see what you were getting at. You might've misread my point...you think the "response" I was referring to was homophobia. No, the response I was referring was the shame/horniness response at seeing naked people of the desired sex, or being seen naked by a stranger who desires your sex.

I have to admit, I got the mental image of you walking into a women's shower then defiantly telling them to "get over it" when they call for the police or try to cover their naked bodies. You know that's funny.

Ah, you are right naked bodies are EVIL and should be shunned.

Are you sure it was entirely non-sexual?

Are you sure that when your parents bathed you as a child it was entirely nonsexual?

And you be sure that anything in your life was entirely non-sexual?

Look backward for the sensible response. I stressed it repeatedly in most of my posts on the previous page.

Yep, like racism this is a taboo to entrenched to ever change and we have to just accept it and continue to support it. Or people will be made unconfortable by the change.

Wheezebucket

26th September 2006, 11:59 AM

Again, can we please get past this ridiculous notion that if there's a male supervisor at a girlscout camp he HAS to be in the shower room with them!? It is not the case! He does not HAVE to sleep in the same bunk room - he does not HAVE to watch them get dressed. What the F**K kind of scouting is going on these days?!?!?!?!!?!?

It's like saying "What if a unicorn swooped into the changing room and scooped up all the clothes and sprinkled fairy dust on all the kids, making them sexually aroused so much so that the counselor had to flee for his own safety, lest he be molested himself by the rampaging horde."

None of these absurd arguments are legitimate reasons for a guy who likes to play around with another guy in bed (or lady on lady) not to be able to coach gym or teach kids how to start a campfire. Again, if we lived in a society where people were so stupid that they saw no alternative to a man staring directly at a naked 16 year old girl, then I'd agree with you - but thankfully, that is not the case. There are countless ways to avoid said scenario.

What about us bi-sexual people? Should I just lock myself in my room because I'm attracted to everybody, all the time?! I'm sick! I can't walk down a street and see a cute little kid without my twisted sexual desires, that apparently stem from my sexual orientation, telling me to Seek, Molest, Destroy!

How a grown man/woman likes to get off with another grown man/woman in a healthy, adult, private setting is *completely* irrelevant to whether or not he can coach dodgeball.

"the response I was referring was the shame/horniness response at seeing naked people of the desired sex, or being seen naked by a stranger who desires your sex."

This is insulting and bizarre. I have seen both a naked 6 year old male and a female in my adult life. In neither case did I feel at all sexual or ashamed in that situation. I understand that the human body itself is not shameful, and know that a 6 year old child shouldn't feel that way either. Both times were at a family function, a pool party. If a kid wants to swim around in that setting, let 'em! You see? Context is everything. Now if I was some random guy and I walked in and started looking around for 'em, that would be completely different - it would also have nothing to do with my sexual preference, but a sick mental illness related to child molestation - that does NOT go hand in hand with sexual preference!!!

At 10-11-12-etc., it becomes necessary to ensure privacy and respect for a child's growing body, it's an odd time for a kid - which is one of the common sense reasons why adults don't spend time around them while they're changing or showering. Any adults, hetero or otherwise.

You are talking out of your ass. Plain and simple. If the fairy tale world you described existed where cartoon cutouts were given free reign to hang out in locker rooms all over America, then I'd be right there with you. Fortunately, that's not the case, and rational minds can see otherwise.

EGarrett

26th September 2006, 01:49 PM

ponderingturtle,

No one asked you to relate your personal experiences at nude camps. Yet you bring it up and when I question you about it you seemed to have immediately become defensive and angry.

That's why I'd rather focus on the issue instead of people's personal feelings or biases.

Got it, midrift tops are not illegal as well as all clothing that men find atractive on women.What does that have to do with what I said? I'm only saying that hypothetically, gays should be restricted in the same way in regards to their desired sex as straight men are in regards to women.

I'm not arguing for more or less restriction in general, I'm arguing for equalling the restriction.

Why is that wrong? Why can a gay man get in the shower and see as many naked men as he pleases but a straight man will get shunned or arrested if he tries the equivalent thing? That's not gays having equal rights, that's gays having superior rights. They can supercede the privacy of others for their own sexual gratification, if they so choose...whereas when straight men do that it's called being a "peeping tom" and they're put in jail.

Ah, you are right naked bodies are EVIL and should be shunned.Again, this is some type of strawman. I didn't say naked bodies are evil, I'm saying they're considered private in U.S. society.

Are you sure that when your parents bathed you as a child it was entirely nonsexual?

And you be sure that anything in your life was entirely non-sexual?Okay, be honest with me for a second. Which is more likely to be sexual...a mother bathing her infant daughter...or two naked, grown men who don't know each other hugging in the woods?

Yep, like racism this is a taboo to entrenched to ever change and we have to just accept it and continue to support it. Or people will be made unconfortable by the change.Racism will fade over time. As people intermingle and equalize their ethnic traits as well as their social situation, the justification will disappear...and thus so will racial hatred.

But as long as you refuse to acknowledge that gays can threaten the privacy of straight men (or women), there will be a justification for homophobia and it will continue to exist.

This is insulting and bizarre. I have seen both a naked 6 year old male and a female in my adult life. In neither case did I feel at all sexual or ashamed in that situation. I understand that the human body itself is not shameful, and know that a 6 year old child shouldn't feel that way either. Both times were at a family function, a pool party. If a kid wants to swim around in that setting, let 'em! You see? Context is everything. Now if I was some random guy and I walked in and started looking around for 'em, that would be completely different - it would also have nothing to do with my sexual preference, but a sick mental illness related to child molestation - that does NOT go hand in hand with sexual preference!!!It's not necessarily child molestation. It's natural sexual desire.

6-year-olds don't arouse people...but 13 or 14 year olds with developing bodies very well might, especially if they're getting naked in front of people.

All I'm saying is that, hypothetically, you should separate gay men and boys in any situation where you'd separate straight men and girls. That's not discrimination against gays. It's the exact opposite. Equality.

In regards to the Boy Scouts specifically, you're ignoring that I also said that allowing gay boys into Boy Scouts creates a co-ed type situation out of what was supposed to be asexual.

Ryokan

26th September 2006, 02:02 PM

It's like saying "What if a unicorn swooped into the changing room and scooped up all the clothes and sprinkled fairy dust on all the kids, making them sexually aroused so much so that the counselor had to flee for his own safety, lest he be molested himself by the rampaging horde."

That's interesting. How old were these girls again? Tell us more!

ponderingturtle

26th September 2006, 02:08 PM

ponderingturtle,

No one asked you to relate your personal experiences at nude camps. Yet you bring it up and when I question you about it you seemed to have immediately become defensive and angry.

Why was that question more valid than the ones I asked? How can anyone ever say something is not sexual? Give me criteria and I can see if that met them.

That's why I'd rather focus on the issue instead of people's personal feelings or biases.
ANd how to keep supporting those biases.

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm only saying that hypothetically, gays should be restricted in the same way in regards to their desired sex as straight men are in regards to women.

Sexual attention is not only given to naked individuals. Look at when a man talks only to a womans breasts. There are clothed situations that can be every bit as unconfortable as naked ones. It is the behavior not the state of clothing that is the issue.

I'm not arguing for more or less restriction in general, I'm arguing for equalling the restriction.
And if you are equaling any restriction you get to the situation where the burka developed. And there are certianly women more confortable with the anonimity and asexual presentation of the burka than more common western garb. But it stems from the same intentions.

Why is that wrong? Why can a gay man get in the shower and see as many naked men as he pleases but a straight man will get shunned or arrested if he tries the equivalent thing? That's not gays having equal rights, that's gays having superior rights. They can supercede the privacy of others for their own sexual gratification, if they so choose...whereas when straight men do that it's called being a "peeping tom" and they're put in jail.

Once again you are missing entirely the issue of focus. A peeping tom is responding sexualy to the others. ANd I am agrueing that it is a cultural effect of the idea that naked=sex.

Again, this is some type of strawman. I didn't say naked bodies are evil, I'm saying they're considered private in U.S. society.
And I am agrueing that all those precived worries about gays seeing your man parts are also a reflection of US society. The way you would have it there would be no locker rooms just masses of individual changing rooms. And if there where enough people like you to support such a thing they would be much more common in health clubs and the like.

Okay, be honest with me for a second. Which is more likely to be sexual...a mother bathing her infant daughter...or two naked, grown men who don't know each other hugging in the woods?

I never said they didn't know each other, I am leaveing out alot of context but the point remains that it happens and it did not take long for most of the campers to get used to it. And they where not grown men(well some where, the campers would have been 11-14)

Racism will fade over time. As people intermingle and equalize their ethnic traits as well as their social situation, the justification will disappear...and thus so will racial hatred.

But as long as you refuse to acknowledge that gays can threaten the privacy of straight men (or women), there will be a justification for homophobia and it will continue to exist.

So as long as there as people are overly self consious of their body homophobia is OK?

It's not necessarily child molestation. It's natural sexual desire.

6-year-olds don't arouse people...but 13 or 14 year olds with developing bodies very well might, especially if they're getting naked in front of people.

So what? they are going to arouse people no matter what they are wearing or doing. It is that nudity is such a taboo in our society that makes them being naked a point of major importance.

All I'm saying is that, hypothetically, you should separate gay men and boys in any situation where you'd separate straight men and girls. That's not discrimination against gays. It's the exact opposite. Equality.

And I am saying that there is not that the percieved need to seperate men and girls in such sitautation is entirely based on society.

In regards to the Boy Scouts specifically, you're ignoring that I also said that allowing gay boys into Boy Scouts creates a co-ed type situation out of what was supposed to be asexual.

No it doesn't. Clearly you have no self control and are incapable of not stareing at naked women and acting on a heterosexual desire for them, but you have to understand most people are not like that they have self control.