Tim Hardaway: "I hate gay people."

[Anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
Drew - yeah I agree.

On a basic level it's just the introduction of "this guy might wanna bang me" (when a straight guy is around a naked gay dude) that creates a visceral response / revulsion / fear in most straight men.

I mean I'd deal with it and over time, sure I'd adjust, but this is not ignorance this is a basic straight male response to the situation (based on current social convention and context). Yes, I understand rationally gay dude may not be attracted to me, and prolly not necessarily thinking about banging me, but I would still have this visceral reaction in a situation where we are both naked and standing next to one another...

Not talking about it and being judgmental is stupid.

And hey if it doesn't bug you as a straight guy, you're in the minority - no need to lord it over us less socially progressive folk.

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Al,

Try to be unattractive. It helps with this apprehension.

Cheers!

[Anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
also, Starship Troopers had a commander whose entire strategy was to attack the universes most fearsome bugs with huge lines of troops and hand held guns instead of, you know, dropping bombs on them from the planes that they were already in.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, ground cannot be acquired and held by aerial assault!

[Anacardo]

Let the record show that I hate the word 'homophobe.' Why is the the only form of prejudice specifically enshrined in our language as a psychologically-termed irrational fear? Why not all of them? Why not none of them? It just sticks out like a sore thumb and pisses me off. Note that this is for entirely apolitical reasons; strictly language-nitpicker ones.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
But I still don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to be uncomfortable in that spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, anyone who goes to the gym, or is ever in the position of taking communal showers, regularly showers with gay men. Just because they may not know which ones are gay shouldn't change their discomfort level . . . but somehow it does. Why is that? I'm guessing denial plays a role, but I could be wrong.

Second, and more important, of course it's unreasonable to feel discomfort with a gay guy in your communal shower. That doesn't make it wrong to feel uncomfortable, and I can certainly understand how some people would have a certain natural "ick factor," but "reasonable" is absolutely the wrong word to describe the situation. The gay guy isn't going to rape you or make a pass. Unless he's a douche-bag he's not even going to ogle you -- and if he does, you can handle it like an adult and ask him to stop, no harm done.

No, the fear that a gay man might see you naked is anything but reasonable. It's a learned instinct, and the rational mind has nothing to do with it.

[Anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone mentioned the killer cross-over yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer the term "UTEP two-step."

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the main topic at hand, I really think I'm in the Twilight Zone. Are all you people from San Francisco? Do you actually think straight men should be 100% comfortable with showering or being naked in front of openly gay men?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, of course -- what logical reason could they have for being uncomfortable?

[ QUOTE ]
And anyone who isn't is somehow ignorant or unevolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but they're being kinda silly. That's nothing to be too ashamed of -- people do, say, and feel silly things all the time. I'd compare it to a camper being nervous when he sees a snake on the ground that he knows for a fact to be harmless. You can understand why he's uncomfortable, but it's still irrational. Of course, the difference there is that his discomfort springs largely from a genetic aversion to serpents, while the nervous straight guy in the shower is responding to an acquired trait.

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, what % of straight men fall into this category?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as many as you think (though still a majority, no doubt). Most heteros with a close gay friend probably wouldn't give a damn.

[GuyIncognito]

VarlosZ,

Should a coach let guy and girl wrestlers or football players shower together? They may not have grown up showering with members of the opposite gender, but they do touch each other's sensitive areas on a daily basis. The discomfort that any of them might feel while showering in the other's presence is entirely a product of social taboos as well.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Should a coach let guy and girl wrestlers or football players shower together? They may not have grown up showering with members of the opposite gender, but they do touch each other's sensitive areas on a daily basis. The discomfort that any of them might feel while showering in the other's presence is entirely a product of social taboos as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Off topic, but are there actually female wrestlers, or football players?

As for your question, I suppose ideally it wouldn't be an issue. But as things are now, no, separate showers are certainly preferable.

Several posters have made the comparison to male/female showers and restrooms, but there's a huge, obvious difference: pretty much everyone of both sexes prefers the segregation. Tell a woman who's just joined a gym that the rules forbid her from showering with men and vice versa, and her response will be, "Thank God for that!"

On the other hand, tell a gay guy that he's not welcome in the men's shower, and he'll complain that it's absurd, discriminatory, ignorant, etc. -- and a lot of straight guys would agree with him. (Then he'll sue you and win, by the way.)

Male/female segregation is somewhat inefficient, but otherwise causes no harm or ill feelings. Gay/straight segregation would be extremely offensive to tens of millions of Americans, and would bring about all the harm which that scenario typically entails. Do you see the difference?

[GuyIncognito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should a coach let guy and girl wrestlers or football players shower together? They may not have grown up showering with members of the opposite gender, but they do touch each other's sensitive areas on a daily basis. The discomfort that any of them might feel while showering in the other's presence is entirely a product of social taboos as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Off topic, but are there actually female wrestlers, or football players?

As for your question, I suppose ideally it wouldn't be an issue. But as things are now, no, separate showers are certainly preferable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there are a significant number of girls who play high school football or wrestle, so it's not an imaginary scenario.

[ QUOTE ]

Several posters have made the comparison to male/female showers and restrooms, but there's a huge, obvious difference: pretty much everyone of both sexes prefers the segregation. Tell a woman who's just joined a gym that the rules forbid her from showering with men and vice versa, and her response will be, "Thank God for that!"

On the other hand, tell a gay guy that he's not welcome in the men's shower, and he'll complain that it's absurd, discriminatory, ignorant, etc. -- and a lot of straight guys would agree with him. (Then he'll sue you and win, by the way.)


[/ QUOTE ]

OK.

But if 3% of the straight men at school or at the gym want to be allowed to shower with the women and claim that they feel that the segregation of showers portrays men as slobbering, lust-ridden animals, is that illegal discrimination? Certainly not.

We don't separate male and female showers because we want to stereotype men (or women, for that matter) as slobbering, lust-ridden animals. We do it because men and women are ... well ... human, and prone to weakness and temptation.

Now everyone says that gay men, because of present societal circumstances, have been socially conditioned to a higher standard of behavior. Hence there's nothing to worry about. Perhaps that's true, but I don't see why it's "unreasonable" for people not to want to make that assumption.

[ QUOTE ]

Male/female segregation is somewhat inefficient, but otherwise causes no harm or ill feelings. Gay/straight segregation would be extremely offensive to tens of millions of Americans, and would bring about all the harm which that scenario typically entails. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, which is why nobody in this thread has ever recommended a forced segregation of showers along straight/gay lines.

The difference here is not one of managing sexual temptation. The differences are that (1) gays are a distinct minority in society, and that (2) society has a long, sordid history of being hostile to this minority, so that any forced attempt to separate shower facilities would naturally be linked to that history.

Clearly the ideal solution would be to have private shower facilities in every locker room. Absent that, people just deal with it on their own. High school kids nowadays are much more aware of the existence of gay people than they were a couple of decades ago. A lot of them simply shower at home after practice instead of using the communal shower facilities at school, and I don't think that's immature at all.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't separate male and female showers because we want to stereotype men (or women, for that matter) as slobbering, lust-ridden animals. We do it because men and women are ... well ... human, and prone to weakness and temptation.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do? I think the proximate cause is that men and women tend to feel uncomfortable with nudity in a co-ed setting. I don't know why it is that we feel uncomfortable, but I'm not sold on its being because we're worried about human weakness and inappropriate behavior. Personally, I'd be uncomfortable mainly because I'm out of shape and embarassed about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Now everyone says that gay men, because of present societal circumstances, have been socially conditioned to a higher standard of behavior. Hence there's nothing to worry about. Perhaps that's true, but I don't see why it's "unreasonable" for people not to want to make that assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unreasonable because it's not an "assumption" -- as long as there have been showers, gay and straight men have bathed naked together, and it hasn't caused any real problems for straight people. Logic and experience tells us it's a non-issue, yet plenty of people are strongly opposed to the idea because ... why, exactly? I'm racking my brains to come up with a good reason.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, which is why nobody in this thread has ever recommended a forced segregation of showers along straight/gay lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of posters have said that they want no part of showering with gays, and at least one has said that it's the gays who should have accomodate the straights.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference here is not one of managing sexual temptation. The differences are that (1) gays are a distinct minority in society, and that (2) society has a long, sordid history of being hostile to this minority, so that any forced attempt to separate shower facilities would naturally be linked to that history.

Clearly the ideal solution would be to have private shower facilities in every locker room. Absent that, people just deal with it on their own. High school kids nowadays are much more aware of the existence of gay people than they were a couple of decades ago. A lot of them simply shower at home after practice instead of using the communal shower facilities at school, and I don't think that's immature at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

If someone feels a strong aversion to showering with gays, then the classy thing to do is to shower exclusively alone. OTOH, talking to a reporter (or anyone else) about how gays shouldn't be allowed in showers or locker rooms? Not so classy.