OT: A long-awaited celebrity 'coming-out'!

It was an entertainment for rich contributors; both parties routinely spend tens of thousands of dollars on such functions every month (for example, the RNC recently held an event at a resort in Wyoming which cost $145,000). $2000 for such an event is a drop in the bucket; the ONLY reason it was controversial was that the entertainment was {{{GASP!!!}}} sexual in nature.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I only liked the dance contest scene in Pulp Fiction. It came out just about the time I was thinking about going into nursing, so of course I was fascinated by that whole epinephrine shot in the heart scene. It's very inaccurate, by the way. If it works, you don't sit straight up like Dracula in his coffin! (Yes, I know it's a great scene and no, I wouldn't change a thing!)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It may interest you to know that I keep a bottle of epinephrine in the outside refrigerator, just in case one of my animals should go into anaphylactic shock after a vaccination or some other injection.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I enjoyed Pulp Fiction but I knew of several women who did not--and I think a lot of it might have been them not 'rolling with' the nature of the film. (Not saying it necessarily would've been every woman's cup of tea, certainly, because at a different time in my life I might not have enjoyed it, but it was a fun ride in the mid-90s.)

When I was getting my bikini line done in the late '90s, whenever my electrologist would hit a sensitive spot and I twitched slightly, she would say "Be cool, Honey Bunny." I never thought this was anything other than her cute way of talking until one day she asked, "Haven't you ever seen Pulp Fiction?" I replied in the negative and asked what it was about, only to hear the same response I had gotten from others about it: "It's kind of hard to explain..." Not long after I found it in the used DVDs at the late, lamented Wherehouse, and thoroughly enjoyed it.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There are many great moments in Pulp Fiction for me.

Mainly the dialogue between Travolta and Jackson. It's rare that I like the banter as much as I did in that movie.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

October, I am glad you enjoyed it too! I like her quoting "Be cool, Honey Bunny"!



"It's like living in a house full of Howie Mandels"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I would have felt very uncomfortable if I were watching 'Pulp Fiction' in the cinema and an unfortunate accident had caused my bag to split open spilling a gimp mask, ball gag and a collar and chain into the aisle!

Thank you for inadvertently making a point for me. All the "GLBT" activists love to compare their campaign to that of black civil rights, but that argument does not remotely hold water because the only way anyone knows in public that someone is gay or whatever is if that person chooses to demonstrate it, while black people cannot hide being black. It would be been impossible to have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy for blacks, but for sexual practices it works just fine.

Sexuality is something that belongs in the bedroom, period. I have never in my life faced any kind of prejudice due to the fact that I sleep with girls sometimes, or due to my being aroused by bondage. And you know why? BECAUSE I DON'T ADVERTISE THEM IN PUBLIC, any more than I advertise the sort of vanilla sexual activities I like. Do you know what 99.9% of the heterosexual people you meet do in bed? No, of course not, because unlike homo activists they feel no burning compulsion to advertise it in public they way homos do. I've heard "queer power" people whine about not being able to kiss in public; well you know what? Kissing in public is in bad taste anyhow, except at airports! And nobody used to bat an eyelash at two women walking around holding hands (or two men sharing a flat) until "gay pride" made those things perceived signs of homosexuality even when they aren't. In my experience most mature men feel uncomfortable holding hands even with a woman in public, so two guys holding hands is just freaky. But that has more to do with the nature of men than it does with homosexuality; nobody cares if two women hug or kiss when meeting, because everybody knows women do that.

As for persecution by cops, I'm sure I don't really need to tell you that this is not confined to sexual deviancy. Police departments in every nation throughout history have been filled with sadistic brutes whose dearest desire is to beat the crap out of people, destroy their property and then lock them up for further torture at their leisure. And cops throughout history have done this to any minority (racial, religious, sexual, linguistic or behavioral) that they were not specifically prohibited from doing it to. This "Operation Spanner" was simply the result of frustrated apes in uniform being prohibited from having their fun with blacks, gypsies, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals or any of the other groups they were allowed to persecute in the past. The real problems demonstrated by this outrage are A) the police being allowed to initiate actions on their own rather than being required to limit themselves to complying with direction from above; B) the police being allowed to spy on citizens in order to "catch" them at something; C) the courts wasting valuable time, funds and manpower prosecuting consentual activities; and D) the practice of witch hunts in general. Would you have felt better if the witch hunt had been against drug users, prostitutes or actual witches rather than gay BDSM afficianados? Most of the reason these things happen is that people only care about it when it's THEIR group being persecuted. I'm sure you've read this before:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Only nowadays it's "pedophiles", "rapists", "deadbeat dads", etc. Campaigns of harassment and violations of civil rights should anger any free person, no matter WHOM they are directed at, EVEN IF THE TARGET IS ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING. They ultimately have nothing to do with prejudice against a minority or "criminal" or "pervert", and everything to do with our tolerance for injustice directed against those we perceive as "different".


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

And nobody used to bat an eyelash at two women walking around holding hands (or two men sharing a flat) until "gay pride" made those things perceived signs of homosexuality even when they aren't.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You are very right, Miss October. However, I am sad to say that minorites DON'T stick up for one another, even when it is in their best interest to do so. The Vanilla Gays turned the backs on the Pervy Gays in the same way as the Vanilla Straights turn the backs on the Pervy Straights. It's just not their problem.

Until the day comes when it is...

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I am sad to say that minorites DON'T stick up for one another, even when it is in their best interest to do so.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MINORITY. That's exactly my point. Everyone is an individual, and it's an extremely rare individual who isn't a minority in some way. And as long as governments are allowed to persecute ANYONE, everyone is at risk because everyone is a member of some racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, philosophical, political, national, regional, sexual, behavioral, culinary or other minority. And as long as people care more about their stupid little tribes based on those trivial things, rather than our very real connection as human beings, such persecution will never stop.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I used to work in politics. One reason I left the field was that I got tired of categorization of everyone based on race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity, et al. Sometime in US history, we stopped looking at people as individuals and started perceiving them as parts of a gestalt organism not thought to have the ability to think or act independently but merely to function by rote as a stereotypical extensions of a perceived group mind. It sickens me to no end, and it is to the country's great detriment this has come to be the case.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Sometime in US history, we stopped looking at people as individuals and started perceiving them as parts of a gestalt organism not thought to have the ability to think or act independently but merely to function by rote as a stereotypical extensions of a perceived group mind.

Exactly right, and those who adhere to this viewpoint never recognize how paternalistic and shockingly racist it is.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

"Sometime?"

The country was founded that way

Exactly.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I completely disagree. Up until the mid-20th century American jurisprudence and governmental philosophy recognized citizens as individuals, capable of individual action and responsibility. Citizens were considered to be responsible for their own actions, economic support, families, etc. It was not until the growth of socialism and the mass popularization of psychology in the 1910s to '30s that the movement toward thinking of individuals as mere components in a collective began, and the wholesale removal of personal responsibility from the social and political equation dates only to the post-B.F. Skinner & Dr. Spock era.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Up until the mid-20th century American jurisprudence and governmental philosophy recognized citizens as individuals

American law originally granted legal rights to groups, not individuals. For instance, the right to vote was originally granted only to land owning white males, then to all white males, then to all males, and only in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th amendment did the right to vote finally become an INDIVIDUAL right. There are other examples of what are now recognized as individual rights which used to be group rights. That's what I meant.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

American law originally granted legal rights to groups, not individuals. For instance, the right to vote was originally granted only to land owning white males, then to all white males, then to all males, and only in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th amendment did the right to vote finally become an INDIVIDUAL right. There are other examples of what are now recognized as individual rights which used to be group rights. That's what I meant.

Please keep in mind: white males are NOT collectively of one mind any more than any other such grouping of people. Traditionally in Western societies (ever since Greece/Rome), politics have been considered to be part of the man’s realm. The man who was head of household participated politically on behalf of his family. However, educated women certainly let their views be known. It is known from diaries that husbands often consulted their wives on such matters. For example, John Adams and his wife Abigail Adams had a powerful intellectual relationship. Lastly, after colonial independence, most Northern states granted voting rights to all free adult males. Hence, voting rights were certainly individual rights in the colonies.

Slaves were excluded from politically participating in society. However, Southern slave states insisted that the slave population be constitutionally partly counted (3/5) towards representation in the Congress.

I thought this well-expressed the purpose of voting rights requirements:

[…Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value. Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes. Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

Such requirements tended to delay a male colonist's entry into the voter ranks until he was settled down and established. They reflected the belief that freeholders, as property owners were called, had a legitimate interest in a community's success and well-being, paid taxes and deserved a voice in public affairs, had demonstrated they were energetic and intelligent enough to be trusted with a role in governance, and had enough resources to be independent thinkers not beholden to the wealthiest class. English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s:

“The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.” …]

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Please keep in mind: white males are NOT collectively of one mind any more than any other such grouping of people.

I never said they were. I said only that many rights were granted to groups rather than to individuals.

“The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.”

What utter BS. Having a will of one's own is in no way dependent on owning land, and owning land in no way makes one immune from "undue influence".

reply share

add reply

formatting help

<<Please keep in mind: white males are NOT collectively of one mind any more than any other such grouping of people. >>

I never said they were. I said only that many rights were granted to groups rather than to individuals.

Well, then I suppose by your definition, any voter qualification automatically means voter rights are group rights rather than individual rights. For example, how do you feel about laws against felons, illegal aliens, and children from voting? Socialist progressives are attempting to award voting rights to these groups, i.e. "motor voter" that does not require identification or even a social security number and the proposed "Restore Democracy Act" that would allow felons to vote. The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971. Personally, I feel that the voting age should be 21. However, anyone in military service should have the right to vote.

<<“The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.” >>

What utter BS. Having a will of one's own is in no way dependent on owning land, and owning land in no way makes one immune from "undue influence".

Back in colonial times, almost everyone was a farmer or supported farmers. Thus, owning property was considered attaining measure of responsibility and establishing a vested interest in the community.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Well, then I suppose by your definition, any voter qualification automatically means voter rights are group rights rather than individual rights. For example, how do you feel about laws against felons, illegal aliens, and children from voting?

Felons - a self-selected group who (if they are guilty) chose to commit crimes that they knew would cause them to lose their voting rights if they got caught and convicted.
Illegal aliens - Illegal aliens have the right to vote in the country where they are citizens.
Children - Children will have the right to vote when they grow up, so it is denied to them only temporarily.

The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971. Personally, I feel that the voting age should be 21. However, anyone in military service should have the right to vote.

I agree.

Back in colonial times, almost everyone was a farmer or supported farmers. Thus, owning property was considered attaining measure of responsibility and establishing a vested interest in the community.

The problem with that system is that it effectively kept most of the poor poor. Voting rights can be leveraged to gain anti-discrimination law which is the path to employment opportunity.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

What utter BS. Having a will of one's own is in no way dependent on owning land, and owning land in no way makes one immune from "undue influence".

No system is perfect, Honey. Surely you must admit that poor people have a tendency to vote for unscrupulous politicians who promise them goodies; that's been happening at least since the time of the Gracchi.

I feel, and always have felt, that there should be SOME criterion (beyond merely having a pulse) required to earn the vote; owning property or a business is one, completing a period of national service is another. You once suggested the vote be limited to people who were at least 60 and had been gainfully employed their whole lives, and that would work as well. The important thing is to limit participation to those who have a vested interest in the society rather than giving most of the power to easily-led sheeple who can't think beyond their bread and circuses. A government of concerned citizens is a democratic republic; what we have degenerated into is little more than mob rule, with all the power in the hands of the most artful rabble-rousers.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I feel, and always have felt, that there should be SOME criterion (beyond merely having a pulse) required to earn the vote; owning property or a business is one, completing a period of national service is another. You once suggested the vote be limited to people who were at least 60 and had been gainfully employed their whole lives, and that would work as well. The important thing is to limit participation to those who have a vested interest in the society

What I suggested was that the vote should be limited to full-time-working taxpayers and retirees over 60 who paid taxes for at least 30 years.

Everyone has a "vested interest" in the society they live in; what I advocate is that the right to vote should be EARNED by taxpaying.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Everyone has a "vested interest" in the society they live in; what I advocate is that the right to vote should be EARNED by taxpaying.

I completely disagree with the first half of your statement; many people don't give a damn what happens to society as a whole so long as they get their free lunch. I do, however, completely agree that voting should be an earned privilege rather than a right given to anyone who survives to the age of 18 and can be carried or dragged to the polls, even if he can neither read the ballot nor comprehend the issues.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

On the matter of 'Don't ask. Don't tell'. When I was in the SU there was a poster on the wall which had an equal-ops poster of two sailors stripped to the waist and kissing. Some gays criticised this poster on the grounds that it was too confrontantional, and suggested a better poster would have featured a squadron of ratings with the legend "Question: Which of these sailors is Gay? Answer: All of them!". I am inclined to agree. A poster such as that would have reinforced the fact that these men were all trained and experienced professional warriors, and their sexual orientation was irrelevant to their ability to perform this role. The poster that was used was was straight out of 'Tom of Finland' gay porn, and seemed designed to alienate rather than convince people.

However, if gay people (or pervs for that matter) DO wear a emblem on the lapels that identify them as being a member of such a community. How is different from Jews or Muslims doing the same thing to 'flaunt' their religious identity? Many gay activists in the 1970's said that the reason that homosexuals were distrusted by mainstream society was because they were 'invisible'. People felt threatened by the Unknown Other in their midst and felt that these people had something to hide. This made them easy prey to the bigots and the hate-mongers in society. If one hears someone expound that, for example, witches are all child-abusing Satan-worshippers, one can hardly take issue with them if one does not know any 'out' witches. After all, the guy SEEMS to know what he's talking about...

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Many gay activists in the 1970's said that the reason that homosexuals were distrusted by mainstream society was because they were 'invisible'.

I disagree. The issue of society in general with homos is not and never was one of "trust", but rather of disgust. And if it was about "invisibility", lesbians would be as vilified as homosexual men, which they never were even as far back as Biblical times (remember, Mosaic law contains no ban on female homosexuality, only male). This is due to the simple reason that male sexuality is inherently agressive, while female sexuality is not, and straight men are understandably nervous about the possibility of assault by another man.

But the whole issue becomes moot as long as legislators, cops and courts are prohibited from pursuing victimless crimes or attacking people for what they ARE rather than what they do. Would you care if most people were uncomfortable with your sex life as long as they had no power to do anything about it? I know I wouldn't. Why should I give a damn what the Great Unwashed thinks about witchcraft, bisexuality or sex work so long as they can't persecute me? Sure, there will always be a few who feel it necessary to "come out" and try to change public perception, and it is their right to do so, but it's also the right of others to remain in the woodwork. And yes, there will always be haters who will beat up queers; so what? There will always be thieves who target people because they're rich, and rapists who target women because they're sexually attractive, and religious fanatics who victimize members of different religions. No law or government can stop all individual crimes, not even inside of prisons! But it isn't the individual crimes which decimate entire groups and go down in history, it's the wholesale persecutions conducted by (or at least encouraged by) governments.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yes, indeed. The particular example I gave was based on an extremist Christian and Conservative Member of Parliment who was attempting to enact legislation against Pagans. This was was - quite literally - trying to instigate a witch-hunt. He was engaged by a very small and polite Wiccan Priestess who correctly pointed out their faith was not Satanism, that Satan was the name of the Christian Devil, and that they had no interest in worshipping him.

Without batting a eye, the MP shot back in a tone of sneering contempt "So what is the name of the Devil that you DO worship?". He then went on to ask if the Wiccans 'used' children in their rituals. The Priestess may as well have asked him if Christians 'used' children in theirs! It must be remembered that this was only a few years after the savage and unprovoked assault by police riot troops on pagan pilgrims making their way to Stonehenge for the annual Summer Soltice.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

As I’m sure your husband can attest, men who are in fighting units, especially elite fighting units, must bond extremely closely. Such male bonding is akin to family ties – there cannot be even a hint of sexuality between the men because that would run morale. In Marine Corps boot camp training, men are expected to have not a second thought about being nude around each other or if some guy happens to have morning wood. Drill seargants will never make any comments regarding such a thing because that would ruin morale.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Allowing out-of-the-closet gays to serve in the military is an experiment that could have bad effects. I wonder if gays even consider this possibility. Do they care at all?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Allowing out-of-the-closet gays to serve in the military is an experiment that could have bad effects. I wonder if gays even consider this possibility. Do they care at all?

Socialist progressives do not care a whit about the impact of their proposed policies on military morale. What they care about is forcing everyone into their brave new world utopia servicing the feelings of homosexual men that want to hang out with the guys.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Socialist progressives do not care a whit about the impact of their proposed policies on military morale. What they care about is forcing everyone into their brave new world utopia servicing the feelings of homosexual men that want to hang out with the guys.

"Socialist progressives"? Not everyone who disagrees with you about anything is a socialist!

I support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; it allows gays to serve in the military while sparing straight people from having to know they're bunking/rooming/showering with gays.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I don't support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". But if a man keeps his interesting sexual proclivities to himself, then I personally would not worry too much about it either. However, I completely understand young men not wanting to shower/bunk with homosexual men. I think that most women don't understand this male sensibility.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I don't support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". But if a man keeps his interesting sexual proclivities to himself, then I personally would not worry too much about it either. However, I completely understand young men not wanting to shower/bunk with homosexual men. I think that most women don't understand this male sensibility.

What do you support, then? An outright ban on any gays in the military?

I agree with you that "most women don't understand this male sensibility". Straight women may be uncomfortable with showering/bunking with lesbians, but there isn't the same fear of aggression.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Allowing out-of-the-closet gays to serve in the military is an experiment that could have bad effects. I wonder if gays even consider this possibility. Do they care at all?

"Queer activists" care no more about the lives and happiness of real homosexuals than neofeminist activists care about the lives and happiness of real women, or Marxists care about the lives and happiness of real working-class people. "Gay rights" is merely the guise of their chosen path to power, and the actual (as opposed to activist-created) needs of real people are of no importance to them whatsoever.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"Queer activists" care no more about the lives and happiness of real homosexuals than neofeminist activists care about the lives and happiness of real women, or Marxists care about the lives and happiness of real working-class people. "Gay rights" is merely the guise of their chosen path to power

Some of the rights gay activists have fought for are legit, like the right not to be arrested, and not to lose a job. It's because they do good work that they are able to gain a following for their bad ideas, like "gay marriage".

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Some of the rights gay activists have fought for are legit, like the right not to be arrested, and not to lose a job. It's because they do good work that they are able to gain a following for their bad ideas, like "gay marriage".

That's the story of every kind of activism, though. Early feminists and early socialists both had legitimate greivances as well, but activists inevitably turn into political power-seekers, and the cause they support inevitably decays into a solution in search of a problem.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MINORITY. That's exactly my point. Everyone is an individual, and it's an extremely rare individual who isn't a minority in some way.

I agree but humans are programmed to feel the need to join together with like-minded people and this is especially true of those who feel themselves different in some way - outside the mainstream. However, if you take away the thing that binds them into a group then often they have little or nothing else in common, which could explain why homosexuals who were prosecuted for BDSM practices didn't get the support that might have expected from the homosexual comminity as a whole.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

That is a really good point, Indy.



The harder the life, the sweeter the song.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Surely you must admit that poor people have a tendency to vote for unscrupulous politicians who promise them goodies;

In all fairness, O, since nowadays you and most people consider both major parties (and politicians in general) unscrupulous, wouldn't that also indicate that the rich/wealthy also have that tendency, especially if they support a major-party ticket? (Presuming your statement wasn't a slam against the 'poor-who-vote-Democrat' thing.)



The harder the life, the sweeter the song.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

In all fairness, O, since nowadays you and most people consider both major parties (and politicians in general) unscrupulous, wouldn't that also indicate that the rich/wealthy also have that tendency, especially if they support a major-party ticket?

Of course they do, but I'm less worried about how the 1-2% of the population who could reasonably be considered "wealthy" and the 10% who could be considered "well-off" vote, compared to how the 20% who could be considered "poor" and the 30% who could be considered "marginal" do. The wealthy will never be numerous enough to affect the political landscape by mere voting, and when they want things their way they just pay off politicians anyhow.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

What do you support, then? An outright ban on any gays in the military?

How ‘bout all gay brigades?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iH1GhM2j8

I agree with you that "most women don't understand this male sensibility". Straight women may be uncomfortable with showering/bunking with lesbians, but there isn't the same fear of aggression.

Imagine an icky guy from your past who had an interest in you. Now, imagine having to shower with him.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

How ‘bout all gay brigades?

That Monty Python "military fairy" skit you linked is hilarious.

Do you really support all gay brigades, and if not, what do you support?

Imagine an icky guy from your past who had an interest in you. Now, imagine having to shower with him.

[[[Shudder]]]

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Men who are rejected as soldiers for any reason can serve in military support positions.

The Sacred Band of Thebes is a famous historical example of an elite fighting force where the men were reputed to take one another as "lovers".


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

I completely understand young men not wanting to shower/bunk with homosexual men. I think that most women don't understand this male sensibility.

The women who don't understand it are the same ones who refuse to comprehend the differences between male and female sexuality in general. Men are innately sexually aggressive, so guys no more want to shower and dress in front of homosexual men than women want to do so in front of men in general. Lesbians don't generally rape, grope or scope, so most women don't feel threatened by them even if they dislike them, but the same cannot be said of homosexual men. Women who support overt, declared homos in the military should be forced to live and shower with men for a year before they're allowed to vote on the issue.

It's the same thing as prohibiting avowed queers from being scoutmasters. We don't let heterosexual men take adolescent members of the sex they're attracted to on overnight hikes for obvious reasons, so why in blue blazes should we give homosexual men a privilege that is denied straight men?


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I agree with Miss October on the subject of Queer Scoutmasters. If a straight adult male was vociferously demanding the 'right' to take a bunch of 12 and 13-year old girls on a camping trip he would probably be lynched from the nearest lamp post. However when it comes to gays in the military, I ndo not see what the problem is. They are in the police and fire service and seem to have integrated OK.

If the presence of gay soldiers in a unit causes a problem, then it is up to the CO to maintain discipline. If he cannot, then he is unfit for his post and should be replaced by someone more competent.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Have you ever been in the military, Owen? Frankly, I think military affairs should never be decided by people who do not know what it's like, INCLUDING myself. Only veterans and current service members really know what they're talking about.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

However when it comes to gays in the military, I ndo not see what the problem is. They are in the police and fire service and seem to have integrated OK.

Policemen and firemen don't shower together, dress together, and sleep in the same room.

If the presence of gay soldiers in a unit causes a problem, then it is up to the CO to maintain discipline. If he cannot, then he is unfit for his post and should be replaced by someone more competent.

No authority figure can control the situation when men shower, dress, and bunk with those to whom they are sexually attracted.

Rape of female soldiers by male soldiers in Iraq has become a huge problem (which the mainstream media generally does not report). Rapes in the showers are especially common. Whose brilliant idea was it to have men and women share showers?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Policemen and firemen don't shower together, dress together, and sleep in the same room.

Over here firemen sleep in the same room when they work a night shift.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Over here firemen sleep in the same room when they work a night shift.

American firefighters may sleep in the same room when they work a night shift for all I know, but there's a difference between sleeping in the same room during a night shift, and LIVING in the same room 24/7.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's the same thing as prohibiting avowed queers from being scoutmasters. We don't let heterosexual men take adolescent members of the sex they're attracted to on overnight hikes for obvious reasons, so why in blue blazes should we give homosexual men a privilege that is denied straight men?

The Catholic Church allows gay men to be priests as long as they promise to be celibate. The result is that an estimated at least 25% of newer American priests are gay, and a shocking 4 percent of North American Catholic priests have been accused of child molestation, and 80% of the victims are boys. The same problem exists on an equal or greater scale in Europe, and hence probably in other places as well.

The Catholic Church's problem is the celibacy requirement for priests; it makes the priesthood a perfect hiding place for perverts, and makes sexually normal Catholic men unwilling to be priests.

Laws against discrimination in employment do not apply to the Boy Scouts because Scoutmaster is a volunteer, unpaid position. People need jobs to survive. Nobody needs to be a Scoutmaster to survive.

My teenage cousin grew up in the Boy Scouts, and the Boy Scouts helped him to be very athletic and physically fit, and taught him many useful skills. I'm glad he had straight men looking after him on overnight camping trips, and I'm glad he had straight men as his role models.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The aggressive nature of male sexuality is definitely the essential difference from female sexuality. Socialist progressive groups like the ACLU trying to force the Boy Scouts to permit homosexual men to be scoutmasters is just amazing and appalling.

Having worked in the cosmetics business, and having known homosexual male salon employees who had the worst attributes of both men and women, they were invariably at the center of excessive drama. Admittedly, straight female salon empoyees also oftentimes had their own dramas.

Certainly, homosexual men can behave as reasonable people. I knew a moderately flamboyant homosexual man who was a salon owner but he kept the drama out of his business.

Just today, I heard that the New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo successfully prosecuted “American Eagle Outfitters” for not allowing male employees to wear dresses.
http://www.stylelist.com/2010/05/12/american-eagle-outfitters-settles- transgender-discrimination-com/

Among soldiers, there is an essential need for TRUST among high-strung young men who may not always like each other and are oftentimes unreasonably angry. Soldiers must repress their feelings and work together as professionals who follow orders without question to GET THE JOB DONE. In order for this to work, soldiers must be as tightly bonded as are close family members. There is NO JOB where professionalism and morale is more important than the military because LIFE and DEATH is on the line. TRUST is essential to morale and hence unit cohesion. A man having sexual interest in other men and all the accompanying drama would shatter trust. All this progressive nonsense of forcing society to cater to extreme expressions of male homosexuality is obnoxious enough in the civilian world, but WILL get men KILLED on the field of battle.

For other reasons, men who have bad eyesight or some other physical issue are also rejected as soldiers. It’s too bad if their feelings are hurt. But that is the way it must be.

I would not be opposed to homosexual men serving in military support positions.

Progressives, especially homosexual men, should have enough sense to understand that the men in the military keep the nation from being invaded by men from certain other cultures who would happily cut their throats over their proclivities.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Progressives, especially homosexual men, should have enough sense to understand that the men in the military keep the nation from being invaded by men from certain other cultures who would happily cut their throats over their proclivities.

Blaming everything that's wrong with the world on white males is part of far leftist dogma; the contradiction is that white males are more tolerant of homosexuality than any other males in the world.

A lesbian replied to my posts on this board in which I objected to adults seducing teenagers; she proclaimed that she had had a good relationship with an underage partner, and accused me of being something like a "patriarchal white male". I felt like telling her to go to Jamaica and loudly declare her lesbianism on a crowded public street and count the seconds until at least one nonwhite male would attack her physically. Then do the same thing in Pakistan and wait to be arrested or beaten to death.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Don't members of the Police and Fire Service have to trust each other with their lives too? If I were running into a burning building with blazing beams crashing down around me, I wouldn't really give two hoots if the man behind me thought I had a cute butt or not. All I would want him to do is WATCH the damn thing!

If the task happens to be a 'labour of love' for him...Well, I guess I'm just flattered.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Don't members of the Police and Fire Service have to trust each other with their lives too? If I were running into a burning building with blazing beams crashing down around me, I wouldn't really give two hoots if the man behind me thought I had a cute butt or not. All I would want him to do is WATCH the damn thing!

If the task happens to be a 'labour of love' for him...Well, I guess I'm just flattered.

And will you trust this man to save your ass when he has a sullen hissy fit because you won’t share it with him?


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Comparing cops and firemen to military men is a fallacy that cops love to encourage, but they are NOT the same. Neither cops nor firemen have military discipline; they are not subject to military codes of behavior or justice and do not answer to a military authority. They are free to live where they like and do what they like with their off-hours, and can quit at any time without penalty; they are CIVILIANS despite their paramilitary (not military) organizational structure.

And that makes all the difference in the world.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Comparing cops and firemen to military men is a fallacy that cops love to encourage, but they are NOT the same. Neither cops nor firemen have military discipline; they are not subject to military codes of behavior or justice and do not answer to a military authority. They are free to live where they like and do what they like with their off-hours, and can quit at any time without penalty; they are CIVILIANS despite their paramilitary (not military) organizational structure.

And that makes all the difference in the world.

I completely agree. In fact, I think it is a terrible problem that cops cultivate a siege mentality where they feel that they must dominate civilians and react with great hostility towards civilians who do not reflexively kowtow to their authority. However, I also believe that leftists contribute to this state of affairs by their encouragement of disrespect for society and authority figures.

A civilian police force in free society (as opposed to a military police force) is important to preserving liberty.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

And will you trust this man to save your ass when he has a sullen hissy fit because you won’t share it with him?

Lacedemonians, would you say the same thing to a female firefighter, that she shouldn't trust her male colleagues to save her in a fire if they are mad that she refuses to have sex with them? You seem to be suggesting that you regard gay men as generally untrustworthy.

The issue in the military is straight men forced to shower, dress, and live with gay men. That issue is moot for firefighters and policemen.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

And will you trust this man to save your ass when he has a sullen hissy fit because you won’t share it with him?

Lacedemonians, would you say the same thing to a female firefighter, that she shouldn't trust her male colleagues to save her in a fire if they are mad that she refuses to have sex with them? You seem to be suggesting that you regard gay men as generally untrustworthy.

Flamboyant gay men who heavily identify as homosexuals do not exactly cultivate masculine virtues that would lead one to feel such men could be depended on under fire.

I strongly oppose lowering standards in order to employ more minorities and women as firefighters. However, I do feel there is value in actively seeking minorities and women to be cops.

Women tend to have a strong instinct to always save themselves no matter what (unless children are involved). I’ve never met a woman who I thought could be depended on in the face of overwhelming physical danger.

Men instinctively will protect women no matter what. This is yet another reason why women in combat are problematic.

The issue in the military is straight men forced to shower, dress, and live with gay men. That issue is moot for firefighters and policemen.

Morale and unit cohesion are still important issues for firefighters and policemen – but not nearly to the same extent as the military.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Firemen sleeping together is not the same thing as them living together?

I think the key word here is 'sleeping'. If one is not afraid to snuggle up in one's bunk next to a gay man, then one should have no promlem with sharing a dorm with him during the hours of daylight.

Fire and police officers do not have to live together?

I thought that cops were assigned dorms at the academy during their training cycle both in the UK and US. I also believe that the various State Police forces in the US may house their officers in military-style barracks if they are posted off the beaten track.

The issue is straight men forced to shower and dress with gay men?

This same issue holds true for a coal mine or an oil-rig. These are harsh and unforgiving enviroments in which men must depend on each other completely. These occupations are more risky than law-enforcement, and in the case of oil workers they are stationed on the rigs for months at a time.

Authority cannot control thoughts?

Indeed it cannot, and it should not unless one genuinely wishes to live in a world of Thought Crime and Thought Police. It is authority's role to control behaviour, and nothing more. Checking out pecs is not a criminal offence. Sexual assault is. Even today, the puritanical Sisters of Dworkin spend much of their time pissing and groaning about about the oppressive evil of the 'male gaze'. Sorry, ladies, I just don't care if you feel that a man is undressing you with his eyes. Eyes are allowed. Hands are not. This is why there are police, courts and correctional facilities. I am committed to equal oppurtunities, and this is why I apply the same standard to men as I do to women.

Gays should not serve in the military, unless it is a rear-echelon, non-combat combat role?

So it's left to the straight men to risk life and limb while the gay men sit in the rear with the gear, whipping their weasels over DVDs of Tom Cruise in 'Top Gun'! These men would enjoy all the benefits of military service and veteran status while incuring absolutely none of the risks!

Now if THAT'S not the proverbial 'free lunch', I don't know what is!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Even today, the puritanical Sisters of Dworkin spend much of their time pissing and groaning about about the oppressive evil of the 'male gaze'. Sorry, ladies, I just don't care if you feel that a man is undressing you with his eyes. Eyes are allowed. Hands are not.

Well-said! These delusional dames should be reminded that "a cat may look at a king."


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I agree that people should not worry about some man occasionally taking a look at a woman or even a man. But persistent stares or odd behavior is problematic in a close working environment.

IMO, employers should have the right to discriminate on the basis of behavior. If a gay man makes an overt issue of his sexuality, then that may very well conflict with his fellow employees’ right to work in peace.

Having worked in the cosmetics industry, I often heard complaints from female employees about gay male employees. For example, I often heard complaints over gay male employees trying to kiss female employees to be thus considered as fellow girls.

But what is annoying to women may very well turn into a fighting issue for most men. Most straight men (especially young men) do not want to be touched or even looked at by a gay man. A straight man instinctively regards sexual overtures by another man to be humiliating.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

A straight man instinctively regards sexual overtures by another man to be humiliating

I don't know about the "instinctive" part.

It shouldn't matter anyway. Both the hetero and homosexual players in the scenario are to be expected to conduct themselves appropriately. If they fail, there is a military standard of justice to handle it.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

Firemen sleeping together is not the same thing as them living together?

There isn't the same level of *continual* intimacy when sleeping in the same room during a night shift as when living together 24/7. However, I am open to the possibility that gay firemen may be problematic; I'd ask a straight fireman.

The issue is straight men forced to shower and dress with gay men?

Owen, have you ever taken a shower with a gay man?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I have. One of the guys I went to high school was closeted, but I and a few others KNEW, and most everyone suspected.

And this was in backwater Indiana.

I didn't get molested.

I don't think he was ever ogling me.

And I wouldn't have cared if he did.

He's wasn't my type, y'know with the penis and all.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Kaiju, great that showering with a gay man didn't bother you, but most straight men would be, at the very least, severely uncomfortable with it. And I don't think we can order them to be comfortable, or to ignore their discomfort.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

If I found out that there had been gay men in the showers when I participated in High School sports or collegiate sports, I would not worry about it. But I would not knowingly shower with a gay man.


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

That's funny, it was my impression that the American soldier can handle anything.

I refuse to sell them short.

I have more faith in them then that.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The American soldier can wade through human excrement if he has to, but what's the point?


"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt

reply share

add reply

formatting help

To answer Raw Honey's question. I have taken a shower in the PRESENCE of a bi-sexual man. He was no more than a few feet away, but he didn't jump in beside me. I'm not sure if that's exactly the same, but lets not split hairs.

For the record, it didn't bother me much.

reply share

add reply

formatting help