From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:16:28 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec29.050754.14925@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <105715@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Come on, admit it---the reason we have separate bathrooms is
>>so that men don't sexually harass women.

>No, otherwise there would be large scale rapes in nudist colonies.

>It is sexual context. People from very puritanical cultures seem to
>have a hard time dealing with something such as a topless beach -- to
>them, such heretofore unencountered sexual "display" *must* mean the
>women are all loose and "sexually available", which is of course, not the
>case.

>Yet a person accustomed to such beaches would think it no big deal.

The perfect argument FOR allowing homosexual service members.
But perhaps you think the military can't adjust.

What, they're not regimented enough to adjust to new situations?

>Whether you like it or not, men in a locker room do not care to be placed
>in a sexual context out of their choice. The only information on this other
>than personal anecdotes is the complaints of men in professional sports.
>Their complaint is not that some women reporter is going to rape them, but that
>after a game involving a lot of hard work, they want the locker room to be
>free of any sexual context. And both women and homosexual men introduce that
>sexual context.

No one can be made responsible for another's subjective feelings.

There are people on the street that I find irresistible, even with their
clothes on----in fact, it is a commonly held opinion that scant clothing
is more seductive than complete nudity----but I am completely groundless
in demanding a hotty/hunk-free sidewalk.

>Ask a straight man how comfortable he would be if every time he took a shower
>in his home, a number of straight women (that are not sexually interested in
>him in any way) were to be cluttering his hallway. It can be bothersome.

Are they responsible? How does he know their thoughts and emotions?

>Because of differences in sexual outlook between men and women (and that
>includes homosexual men as well), almost all women would NOT want
>unisex showers and bathrooms. Most men would not either, but, there would
>be a higher percentage of men that WOULD want it -- most likely for hanky
>panky.

So you are admitting that my premise would be true in certain circumstances.

What is this difference in sexual outlook? Genetic or socialized?

If you think the latter, you'd better come up with an argument about how
we can't unlearn it.

>Men are far more often the sexual agressor. Women, for this reason among
>others, do not want unisex facilities.

So, once again, you concede my point, at least partially and ambiguously.

>Men are not used to be sexually
>agressed against. In the military now, homosexuality has to be hidden. If
>it were open, it would remove one check against sexual agression against men.
>I.e., a homosexual NCO could not make the slightest move against a private
>because his homosexuality has to be hidden.

This is the crux. Men don't like being put in a woman's "traditional place".
It makes them embarrassed about their own (potential) behavior.

>In short, given seperate facilities as in men's and women's, I can't see any
>other rational reason to ban homosexuals.

Look, men are used to seeing other men's naked bodies. Gay men can't be held
responsible for creating a climate of fear. They CAN be held responsible for
their sexual conduct, but no another person's thoughts.