I have never heard about that kind of stuff. I would assume it happens, but I would almost bet the rapists think of themselves as straight. Wonder if there are any studies about it?
Yeah. I am pretty sure that was the case. Guy was a big dude too...he just kind of straggled into some big ass party we were having and was just there at like 3am in the living room by himself. kind of weird. we all throught he was a homie of another roomate and got ditched there (4 people in the apartment).
Apparently, straight men and women join the military for all kinds of reasons. To serve their country, employment and job training, travel and adventure, family tradition, socially accpetable outlet for aggression, because the uniform is respected, etc. But gay men and lesbians join the military for the sole purpose of being able to look at straights in the showers. Get over it, straight boys, you really are NOT that attractive! You don't hear this much about women; even the most homophobic women know the threat of sexual assault does not come from other women. DADT was the only law in the United States that required people to lie. A terrible law, bad for everyone, finally dead. RIP.
Question One: aside from the manner in which they have sex, what constitutes being a homosexual? Question Two: Why do men and women not shower together at LA Fitness or Gold's Gym or the Y? Statement One: No one "forced" anyone to lie with DADT. The law of the US stated that homosexuals were prohibited from joining the military, but with DADT no one could ask you about it or pursue investigation of it, leaving a loophole for homosexuals to join if they wanted to. All they had to do was not be "caught" as homosexual. Any attempt to claim differently is wrong.
Aside from the manner in which they have sex, what constitutes being a heterosexual? Beats me. I'd certainly be more likely to join a gym if that were the case. Or maybe that's the answer, they are trying to keep me out. I think hundreds of years of social tradition is the actual answer. barfo
You ask this question once per month, or whenever this topic comes up, and I (and others) have told you: what constitutes being homosexual or heterosexual is the gender you're attracted to. If someone is attracted to the opposite sex, they are heterosexual whether or not they have sex. The same goes for homosexuals. Cultural norm. US society has chosen to segregate men from women for some socially determined sense of modesty. I don't think US society has any cultural norms about mixed sexuality accommodations because the US has spent most of its history trying to prevent/ignore homosexuality. So I don't think there's any pat "men and women don't shower together so that informs us on how straights and gays should be handled" statement that can be made.
Alright, quick question. How do boys who were raised as nudists react to naked girls when they are 13-14 year old boys? When I was that age and I saw a car magazine at the store with a girl in a bikini in it I had to be careful and think about baseball and how boring it is just to stay calm. I think that would take all the fun out of things like seeing your first live naked girl, shame for the nudists. On the other hand, they get to all the time. Who knows which is better?
Thank god for baseball. We American guys are certainly visually stimulated, but it isn't clear to me how much of that is nature and how much is nurture. I think it is possible that if we'd grown up differently that we wouldn't be as excited by a random nipple, but would still be able to get it up when the situation required. But I don't know, never been to that alternate universe. Want to go, though. barfo
I think I know the answer anyway, it has to be upbringing for the most part. If I see a picture of what I would otherwise consider a 10/10 girl but she has underarm hair....NO DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously.
Crap. Just lost a really long post. One of the reasons I keep bringing this up is that it's NOT the definition of the US government (military, in this case). I get that it may be accepted as such by many, but it's erroneous. Here's what the US Code has to say about it, so that we're not just making stuff up to help our point: further: I bolded the "action" words. It's not illegal to be sexually attracted to anyone, same sex or not. It's illegal to act on it. It's legal for me to think that a female sailor is attractive. It's illegal to commit a sex act with her. Tangentially, here's how the government classifies homosexuality (from 2006): You aren't discharged for a predilection to bed wet, or stutter, or having a fear of flying until you actually act upon it or it affects your performance. If you're afraid of flying but keep getting on the plane, no one cares. If you think it's stupid to parachute out of a perfectly good airplane, but keep doing it anyway, no one cares. If you are attracted to your hot female CO, but do nothing to act on it, no one cares. If you would like to have sex with the same-sex sailor you work next to, but don't act on it, no one cares. You won't get me to say that these are great definitions, or horrible ones. They are the LAW OF THE LAND. While in your particular corner of society that may not mean much, it does in the military. Here are two personal examples (though inappropriate for small viewers): A sailor on the other crew was punished (lost his clearance and was sent to a non-essential duty in the continental US) for being caught receiving oral sex from a transvestite in Honolulu. The arrest was originally for "public indecency" (he was receiving this outside a bar and was caught by civilian police), and the "giver" was very feminine-looking, by accounts of those who had seen the sailor with the giver throughout the night. The sailor stated that he was not homosexual and thought that it was a girl servicing him, but it didn't matter. He wasn't discharged, probably (my speculation here) because he was able to convince someone that having sex with a bisexual/transvestite was a one-time thing for him. But he was punished more severely than, say, a guy who just was caught with a prostitute or who committed adultery. I've told the story before in here about the sailor from my boat with a wife and two kids who, admittedly very intoxicated, got into another sailor's bed and started giving him oral sex. The receiver then woke up and started beating up the giver. Both were punished and kicked off the ship, but because the admittedly heterosexual first sailor had committed a homosexual act (and had potential to do so again the next time he got intoxicated), he was discharged from the navy. The receiver was dropped to the lowest enlisted rank and lost his clearance, which meant he couldn't serve on submarines anymore. The two stories are just counterpoints to those thinking that their definition is right. As far as the military and government are concerned, "homosexuality" doesn't have anything to do with thoughts or feelings or attractions. It's based on physical acts.
If your question was "What does the military consider to be homosexuality?" then you should have asked that question. My response wasn't erroneous, it's the actual definition of sexuality. I was answering the question you asked, not the question you apparently meant inside your head. Your own quoting of military code doesn't support this claim. From your quote: "The term 'homosexual' means a person, regardless of sex, who ... has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts" As you can see, actually committing the act is not necessary for the military to consider a soldier homosexual. The words "propensity" and "inten[tion]" are words that deal with the mind, not actions. They're vague, not black and white. Which is why DADT was put in place to allow gay soldiers to serve...it was a way for the Clinton administration to get around that rule without actually sanctioning homosexuality in the military. If a gay soldier doesn't mention he/she is gay, or that he/she has a same-sex lover, there's no way to be charged with a "propensity" or "intention" of same sex intercourse. Not according to the code you quoted. And the next step is to remove the difference in how the military disciplines homosexual intercourse versus heterosexual intercourse.
That has ALWAYS been the case; "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" never prohibited anyone from serving in the military.
I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I saw that recruiting officers can legally deem citizens unfit for duty if they aren't Christian. May not be true, but it was a legit article I saw.
I'm glad DADT was repealed. There will be problems because no matter what I hope, there are homophobes in the military. Most in the military however, no matter if they do or do not support the repeal, follow protocol and are good people who will do what is right for the unit. Over time, the issues will diminish. But my guess is that for the moment, most gays will remain secretive regarding their sexuality. I would be surprised if one in ten gays come out. I think the comparison to sports is apt. I know of one NBA player who is gay (or Bi) because a good friend of mine has been with him. And I am sure there are many gays in the NBA, NFL, MLB ... but the fact that none are openly gay even though there are no rules against it, shows that coming out in this type of situation is very difficult and that they most likely fear non-sanctioned repercussions.
