From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 07:02:16 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

In article <1992Jul27.232504.7648@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >In article <j3kmvtq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>Another example -- a high official in the Navy reasigned
    >>because he was protecting one of his aides who was guilty of
    >>sexual harassment. Said aide was a son of an old family
    >>friend. The aide is homosexual and was sexually harassing
    >>enlisted men.
    >>
    >I don't understand why you included this story. If the high
    >Navy official was protecting an aide who was sexually
    >harrasing enlisted men, he/she deserved to be fired (along
    >with the person doing the sexual harassment). Sexual
    >orientation doesn't enter into it as far as I can see.

To give an example that refutes the statement that homosexuals in the
military will/would not be sexually harassing people of the same sex.


    >>We woulkd all likely agree (?) that coed showers in the
    >>military would not be a good idea. Most women are not likely
    >>to enjoy being naked around men -- it is a violation of the
    >>sense of privacy. If women are naked, men will look and enjoy
    >>the show. I don't think just because a man is homosexual that
    >>that part of him disappears. Do you claim otherwise? Yet why
    >>is their such vehemence in maintaining the crusade against
    >>the military policy against homosexuals? The lack of a
    >>matching crusade FOR total coed showers, latrines, housing is
    >>conspicous by its absence -- or is there something to
    >>privacy, expecially in sexual matters?
    >>
    >Well, I belong to a health club which has men's and women's
    >showers. The men's showers are communal (ie: there isn't any
    >privacy in the shower). I must assume that a certain number
    >of the men at this club are gay (as far as I know, my club
    >doesn't discriminate against gays). Yet, surprisingly enough,
    >I have yet to see any oggling or catcalls in the men's
    >shower. Are you seriously suggesting that if the military
    >admitted un-closeted gays (they admit plenty of gays right
    >now), that the military showers would suddenly be filled with
    >oggling men ? Why don't we see this in other areas where gays
    >are freely admited ?

The issue is one of privacy. The current social conventions would be such
that a man making a sexual overture or innuendo in a locker room would
be at a minimum ostracized and perhaps become part of a fight. hence, it
happens little. Ask instead, how many straight men would mind showering in
a predominatly homosexual shower room. Of course nobody is going ho be raped
or subjected to obvious overtures. But the sense of privacy will be
invaded.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)