Chronically Off Topic
I’m chronically off topic today.
An experience I had this weekend at the gym has me thinking about American attitudes toward nudity and the body.Â
I don’t think it’s radical or unexpected to say that Americans don’t deal well with the human body - in its variety and similarity. Americans tend to respond strongly to nudity - often with shock, dismay, and horror. I have heard Americans solemnly and seriously assert that allowing a child to see a naked adult is inherently sexually abusive; the practice of bathing or showering with one’s children is considered (marginally) acceptable up to a certain, usually quite young, age, after which it is considered outright taboo.Â
In dressing and locker rooms, children are often shielded from viewing others by the bodies of their parents, who as often as not hide behind towels while changing. We tend to take such attitudes to an extreme. The gym at which I work out does not allow persons under 12 in the facilities (but provides a care center for them to be corralled) and allows minors age 12-17 only under fairly stringent conditions. Many spas ban patrons under 18 years of age.Â
Even among American adults, nudity is still considered questionable. Photographer Spencer Tunick has created some controversy for his photos of large groups of nude adults. There’s a film out documenting some of the challenges he’s faced in the states. I rented it but haven’t had time to watch. The idea of a large number of nude people someplace challenges at the core American attitudes toward the body.
Okay, so back to the gym. This weekend at the gym I was getting ready to shower after working out. A few feet to either side of me, two other men were changing. The first man carefully draped his towel around himself before taking off his shorts and under garments. He then carefully made his way to the shower, holding his towel tightly around his waist, where he closed the curtain before turning on the water. The second man simply stripped off his clothing then searched his locker for his towel, which he casually slung over his shoulder and carried to the showers, where he stood in the out of the stream of water while it warmed up, then stepped in and tugged at the curtain ineffectually before showering. These men seem to me to exemplify the extremes in American attitudes toward the body and nudity - shame and casualness on display in one 60 second slice of life.
The unclothed body, in American culture, is often considered inherently sexual and erotic. When it comes to the body, especially the female body, our public stance tends to sexualize and eroticize the unclothed body. For reasons that defy logic, we consider it shocking for a woman to breast feed in public. The other end of the spectrum sees public nudity as a joke - the streaker is treated as a colossal joke (and quite likely a criminal - there’s a memorable and witty cell phone commercial built around streaking).
I would guess more Americans are category one where the body is concerned - preferring to keep it covered, draped, hidden. (Who can forget John Ashcroft pissing away eight grand to buy drapes to cover the exposed breasts of the statue of Blind Justice?) For these Americans, nudity and sex are the same thing. If one must be naked in public, one does so for extremely limited reasons - usually in the shower at the gym or changing clothes, as quickly as possible.  I know a man who once said he’s never naked unless he’s in the shower. Although it is easy to dismiss such persons as prudes, I think doing so misses a deeper point; raised with shame about the body, these persons would have experienced the body as taboo. All taboo subjects naturally acquire an aura of shock and power. Imbued with body shame, such a person would have experienced nudity in extremely limited contexts - normally with medical professionals (which is the least fun kind of nudity) and with lovers - the most fun kind of nudity. Being casually undressed would be an alien experience to such a person. The spa experience, where nudity is casual and expected is extremely threatening for such a person. The issue is not the nudity per se, but the location and appropriateness; he or she prefers bright white lines delineating spaces in which nudity is acceptable and spaces in which it is not. For this person, the experience of nudity has been clinical or sexual which makes it inappropriate to be nude around children. Quite simply, if nudity is sexual, children should be shielded from sexuality.
The other extreme is the casual, the body is a part of life attitude. For these persons, the body simply is what it is - the variety of body shapes, sizes, types, are just part of life and shielding the body makes no sense. For these persons, body shame has either been unlearned or never taught. These persons do not see nudity as inherently sexual and believe we should teach children that the naked body is morally neutral. For this man or woman, undressing and walking across a locker room is just not any kind of big deal. These persons don’t believe you should go grocery shopping naked, but they don’t see a problem with being naked, or being seen naked, in many types of settings - the home, the locker room, the beach. Treating the body as shameful or shocking misses the whole point. In essence, everybody’s got a body, why make such a big deal? Some years ago, a friend told me a story of traveling with a group - the happened, unexpectedly, upon an isolated beach. It was a warm day, the water was inviting and comfortable and so without discussing it, the entire group stripped down and plunged into the water. It was what it was.
I confess to being stuck between the two extremes. Intellectually I know the body is normal and a natural thing - human bodies come in a wide array of shapes and sizes and no one shape or size or type is better than another. The basic structure does not vary much from person to person. But I was raised in Utah and picked up my fair share of shame about the body. I think, like most Americans, I struggle with the issue. On the one hand, I know it’s silly to hide beneath a towel in the locker room, on the other hand, I’m not quite ready to sling my towel across my shoulder and walk to the shower.
I admire the people who are comfortable in their own skin (and I envy them a little). I sympathize with those who aren’t comfortable in their own skin, who have been taught to be ashamed of their bodies. I know America’s cultural attitudes toward our bodies don’t make sense, but I also suspect they’re not changing anytime soon.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Very embarrassing subject Glenden.
Never off topic, but I’m too embarrassed to post.
Sorry!
AnyBODYelse?
May 30th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Ya’ll been living in Utah too long.
Better question…do you care? Glendon, we’re you looking? You in the mens gym, is like me in the womens dressing room…sure that doesn’t color your view? Or give rise to it?
The utah god then must be a pervert, surely, as none of us came into his creation dressed.
Well my daughter, she came out in the caul, the sack that she grew in. You might want to be a little careful with that image.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:54 am
Shame comes in many forms. I don’t feel the type of shame that says that the body is a bad thing(evil/dirty).
The shame I’ve always felt — quite illogically, I know I should know better — is that my body is shameful because it doesn’t look anywhere near the female ideal. That’s what keeps me covered up in the locker room. I feel the shame of not living up to a nearly impossible standard. I feel like I have failed because I’m not 110 pounds and I lost at genetic roulette. It doesn’t make sense, I know. My logical brain gets that I’m being ridiculous, but the reaction is very real and very strong.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:55 am
**sigh**
Glenn - thanks for making my point and managing to be heterosexist at the same time.
You question assumes that it is impossible to look without erotic intent - that observing in the locker room must be motivated by prurient interest. Referring to the stereotypical adolescent male fantasy of being in the girl’s locker room suggests that the locker room is an erotic location - that seeing person’s undressed is by its nature sexual. That you would choose that example suggests that you hold the first view I described.
Your comment about me in the locker room reminds me of complaints from soldiers about openly gay soldiers “looking” at them in the shower - it says far more about heterosexual men than gay men. Such comments imply that straight men are afraid that gay men will treat them the way they treat (or imagine they would treat) a woman showering with them and they don’t want that. Given that any man who has ever used a public shower has shared it with a gay man, such fears have nothing to do with gay men or gay male behavior and everything to do with straight men’s fears.
Also, your reference to the utah god being a pervert is a clear sign that you hold the “nudity is shameful” view of the body.
As to you daughter, some cultures believe that children born in the caul are have second sight or other spiritual gifts.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:22 am
Jenni - I feel the same irrational pull you feel. The gut reaction to being raised in a culture as deeply ambivalent about bodies as ours seems inescapable. In our society, we pick up strong messages about bodies, and we as often as not measure our bodies against the most extreme examples - the “before” people on Biggest Loser or the “perfect” bodies of models and movie stars. Connected to this is a post over a Hugo Schwyzer’s place in which he takes Naomi Wolf to task for making the argument that women are responsible for men’s sexual satisfaction and their sexual misconduct - that if only women were more sexually mysterious men wouldn’t have affairs on their wives - the idea that somehow if only women were more sexually exciting men wouldn’t cheat on their wives, have affairs and so forth - putting pressure on women to conform to absolutely unrealistic ideals of their bodies.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:54 am
Heterosexist? Was it me looking at people in the locker room or you? Off topic? Given your obsession with sexual issues, I doubt it.
What point? That you observe people in the locker room? You are no more welcome doing so than I would be in a ladies locker room. If only one person objected that would be enough. No matter what the reasoning, it wouldn’t be allowed. Peoples erotic intent is not knowable, this is the absolute reasons locker rooms are separate, to eliminate this. Gays need their own showers, no matter that they have been showering with hets, in the same manner that women would not allow men in their showers, gays need their own places.
Given that gay bars can now keep hets out of the place, it is pretty clear that the double standard is still riding strong.
Now you have admitted in print that you are a Peeping Tom, I don’t care that it wasn’t sexual, it is INAPPROPRIATE! Time for you to start showering alone, with the ladies if they will allow your “studies”, or in the disabled shower.
Your statement of sexual disinterest, goes about as far as mine would if I were peeping in the womens locker room. Straight double standard, but that is part and parcel of special interests in their attempt to get their desires accepted.
Sarcasm is difficult in print, but as much of society here disdains nudity, and god brings us into the world naked, and forces nudity to have children, god may well be a perv in the eyes of the faithful. As for the soldiers, women don’t shower with men there, neither should gays shower with the sex they are attracted to. Simple.
I am of European origins and am comfortable nekkid Glendon, but people have the right to privacy or some expectation that they are not being observed for prurient self interest, in this case, YOURS!
We have all been hit on by gays, in public, or the locker room, it’s pretty easy to know it. You do not get to know all manner of things in this country, SS#, medical records, etc, though they may be of interest to you. The locker room is also that kind of place. It isn’t your business what others do there.
Side: What does it say about women when men are found in locker rooms, and they, women, object?
and my daughter, the Scottish nurse that helped her along said she was a “lucky baby” but really she came out out ten minutes after her Moms’ water broke, no time to get out. Without a midwife or a able mother a baby can suffocate. Really not so lucky. Another myth? Like the gay in the shower that ‘aint looking. C’mon Glendon, you won’t have many believers in that, though it could be true.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:19 am
Glenn -
Moving right from heterosexism to blatant homophobia! Way to go!
Again, you’re assuming that observing someone’s behavior is the same as looking at them with erotic intent. Are you suggesting your sexual desires are so overwhelming that you are unable to behave appropriately in public contexts? You really want public locker rooms to be segregated by gender and sexual orientation? Maybe you’d like gay people to have seprate water fountains as well. Or ride on the back of the bus. Hm?
May 31st, 2007 at 11:22 am
Do chicks cover themselves with towels in the lockerroom? If I were a chick, I’d be lookin’ at the naked one standing next to me trying to measure myself up.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:35 am
Hey anonymous - My female friends tell me there is a lot of comparing going on in women’s locker rooms. Most of it to the detriment of everyone’s self esteem.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Glenn -
“We have all been hit on by gays” - I’ve never hit on by gays. In my 20s I did get hit on by a lot A LOT of middle-aged hetero men, though, which was far more threatening to me than if I’d been hit on by a woman.
Oh, and love your projections about what you think Glendon’s motive is. As Glendon states above — it says a lot more about you than him.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I’ve never been “hit on by gays” either.
Also, I’m not attracted sexually (or non-sexually I guess) to every single male I see regardless of their state of dress (or undress as the case may be) so why would a gay person be any different?
I can remember having a bath with my dad and my younger brother (my brother on numerous occasions). I don’t have any weird feelings about those memories. I have managed to pick up some negative feelings about nakedness I guess because when my kids walk in on me in the shower or changing I have to remind myself not to jump for a towel. I don’t want them to pick up shameful feelings about their bodies, or about the female body.
I do want them to learn to be respectful to their bodies, and I think part of that respect is keeping some things private.
I would be really irritated if someone told me not to nurse my baby when he was hungry (I don’t care where I am), however, I put a blanket over me because I don’t particularly want to be flashing strangers either.
I think it’s a fine line to walk between appropriate private-ness and hiding our bodies out of shame.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Allie - it’s interesting you would mention breast feeding. I was going to talk about it in my post but my experiences and observations with breast fedding have been somewhat odd. My aunt did everything she could to keep anyone from knowing she was breast feeding. Conversely, a good friend of mine, in a restaurant no less, once announced, “Well sounds like the kid’s hungry better whip out a boob” and preceded to do so. Another friend locked herself in a conference room to use her breast pump, which she jokingly named Fernando and she would say, “Well I’m off to have some quality alone time with Fernando.” My sister who absolutely abhorred breast feeding - she found it uncomfortable and often painful and quit as soon as she could; I have another friend who would’ve kept breast feeding till her kids were in high school she loved it so much.
I think that boundary between appropriate privateness and hiding our bodies out of shame is the the line that Americans have a difficult time drawing. Our culture doesn’t deal well with bodies (or sexuality in the broadest and narrowest senses for that matter).
The whole “modesty” movement among parents on behalf of teenagers emphasizes especially for girls “modest” clothing that makes sure there’s no cleavage, shoulders, or knees visible to the world. Some feminist bloggers (especially Amanda at pandagon) have commented on this movement’s painfully obvious subtext of both fear of and desire to control female sexuality. At least some motivation for this modesty movement comes from the perception that sexuality is all or nothing - either you’re virginal til marriage or you’re throwing massive orgies and doing drugs.
With the body, the same fears come into play - that somehow if it’s okay to breast feed in public, people won’t know how to draw appropriate boundaries and before you know it people will be shopping naked in your neighborhood Albertson’s.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I don’ t think the “modesty” movement is a bad thing. I don’t think it necessarily encourages feeling shame about our bodies (although I will admit that inadvertent shame-learning might occur in the same families that are stressing modesty, but not because of the modesty).
I think it goes back to what you said about location and appropriateness of nudity (or in this case various states of “modesty”).
Modesty to me is just being respectful about our bodies, but it does not have to equate being ashamed of our bodies.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I must say, I find ‘Maypole’ Dick Cheney and his lesbian daughter perfect in every way. His newly constructed bomb shelter will be equipped with a subterranean gym and homo birthing room.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:46 am
I breastfed my first daughter until she was almost two and my second daughter until 2 1/4 years. With my first, I tried using a blanket to cover up, but my daughter would come out drenched in sweat and I would get overheated too — even with a light blanket. I didn’t see why we had to suffer because some people in our culture have made breasts a sexual object instead of focusing on its true purpose. So we gave up trying to cover up. I would make sure not to flash too much, but I would feed my daughter out in the open.
I think it’s important to breast feed openly so that we can reestablish the breast true purpose. People need to get used to seeing it so we can get back to a more natural way of parenting.
Interestingly enough, I noticed a couple of years ago that an engraving in the middle of a fountain in Temple Square has a depiction of, among other things, a pioneer woman with her shirt pulled down breastfeeding her baby. I thought that was strange because my experience in the Mormon church (in my younger years) was one of blanket covered babies and “nursing” couches or chairs in the women’s bathroom where women were banned to feed their babies during the services.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:43 am
Jenni - I agree with you. I think people should get used to seeing breast feeding so they get used to the natural idea.
I know this is an aside, but my mother tells me that when she had babies (that would be me and my sibs) doctors advised women to not breastfeed - they argued that formula was healthier for babies. The idea was that manufactured things like baby formula were actually better healthier and so forth than natural things like breast milk. Breast feeding was also a class issue - middle class women did not breast feed, while working class and poor women did.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
‘Formula’ was better food for creating robot / soldiers (which they hoped we’d become).
Is my cynicsm showing?
June 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
It is the shower where your attitudes are most offensive. I’m not homophobic, I appreciate the fact that men screwing men has opened up the field for the remaining men for the avialiable women. It is an instant cure for homophobic men, and leaves them more hopeful and happy when made to see the benefit.
You are fixated on sex Glendon, that you cannot see it isn’t about that. It is about whether the people are comfortable with your orientation in what is a mens locker room. People should have a reasonable expectation that they are not leered at while naked by someone who may find them attractive. It’s why men and women don’t shower together in the same place in public ya boob!
Separate showers for sure, while as you may have yourself under control, you offer no guarantees for the rest of gay society.
I promise girls, when I shower with you, I would in no way sexualize your naked bodies in my mind, just really want to see if you are shy or not.
glke
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:27 am
Glenn - Project much? I write a post about body shame and you start thinking about sex, and then accuse me of being fixated on sex. Think on that.
Your claim to not be a homophobe would have more weight if you did not indulge in the homophobic stereotype of sexually out of control gay men. There’s not an epidemic of innocent straight men being set upon by crowds of ravening gay men in the locker rooms of America. The ravening crowds are usually straight men leering at, groping and assaulting women. I have yet to meet a woman who doesn’t have horror stories about straight men and their behavior toward women. It is straight men who are most likely to be found leering - and it does not matter if the object of their leering is clothed or unclothed, in a gym, a restaurant, an office, a hotel, a public park or a grocery store.
Whether you or another straight man is uncomfortable around gay men is not the issue of gay men. It is your issue, it is the issue of straight men and it has nothing to do with gay men or their sexual orientation.
I’ve been exercising in public facilities for over two decades now - middle school, high school, college, at my work place (which has exercise facilities), at a variety of gyms, I’ve used spas both single gender and coed, I’ve been to beaches, hotels, lakes, rivers, and natural hot springs. The issue is our cultural ambivalence about the body.
A few years back in Havasupai, I watched a group hike in, strip down while conversing with one another, put on their swimsuits and plunge into the water. They were from Germany and camped next to my group and were a shitload of fun. Right next them, a group of Americans set up a screen and took turns changing one by one. It was one of those amusing point counterpoint moments that occur all the time if you’re paying attention. Agewise, the two groups were almost identical, and both were of mixed genders. The non-chalance of the German group sent a powerful message that nudity was not inherently sexual if your naked your naked. The Americans hiding behind a screen sent an equally powerful message about shamefulness with the body and that to be seen naked was wrong. Things which are taboo are often eroticized. American culture is deeply ambivalent about the body.
In all the time I’ve been using locker rooms, in all the different spaces, I have observed a wide variety of behaviors - horseplay, roughhousing, friends bullshitting with each other after a workout; I’ve seen people asked out at the gym (and yes, I have seen some gay couples cross the line of appropriate behavior) - but I have yet to see a gay man make a pass at a straight man. I know it must happen but generally gay men are pretty careful since straight men as a group have a tendency towards anti-gay violence.
The problem is straight male insecurity, not gay male identity and that is the problem of straight men not gay ones. To quote Cordelia Chase, “Spank your inner moppet, embrace the pain, whatever it is, just get over it.” Don’t presume your discomfort with my orientation is or should be my issue.
Namaste.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 am
I’ve known Glendon for a long time - over 20 years. He’s not a peeping tom. He observes. Not everyone can appreciate the role of the observer in our society - the person who can tell us about ourselves (our culture), even when we are uncomfortable with some of the observations.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:42 am
I’ve known Glenn (two n’s) for almost ten years. He is, lets say, a bit uncomfortable with issues of sexuality and nudity.
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Cliff, when we went to the hotspring I recall it was you wearing the bathing suit, not me.
Glendon, alot of retionalizing by you here. do i need to review the vast majority of content of your posts? It’s pretty boring. I have certainly garnished the reaction from you I expected. The rehash of name calling etc. is oh so typical. Experiment over. Homophobe? of what? Its not fear, it the dislike of the disrespect. You own it.
It is the double standard that flaunts itself well within your opinions. You are quite a knob, I am German born and have been naked, around naked people my whole life. Gays and all else. That said, Germans have changing rooms and showers for the sexes and they don’t shower together, there is privacy if you wish it.
In respect of people who do not wish to be “observed” it should be true that gay men are in their own shower, not with hetero males. Nobody really knows nor really cares then, what your viewing intentions are.
It is not a stereotype to describe a person that is gay, as being an unwanted element in the showers of hetero men or women, when a person is naked in the presence of those he may find sexually attractive, no one really knows the intentions of that person, anymore than women would if they found me naked in their dressing room.
If you don’t believe that people aren’t sexualizing naked people in Germany quietly, then you are somewhat foolish. At many a nude bathing session, the follow up was generally filled with some commentary on the anatomy of those present. In private, people are people wherever you go. Just not as hung up on it in Germany as much as here.
You are at, least in script, a kind of creepy, and unseemly person.
Brandy, one mans peeper is anothers observer. It is unwanted in the environ Glendon describes.
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Glendon please make me up some gay rationalization for the policy of disallowing straight people in “gay” bars. This is happening in Vancouver BC.
Seems a tad discriminatory, and right along the two wrongs make a right category.
Do you not find odd that liberal canadian fags can spot a heterosexual by the way “they” look?….and I get acccused of homophobia. I have never restricted any gays, and in fact, my family owned an Inn, which catered to gays, we were on the map in the gay guide of businesses. I guess that should tell you that gays themselves can be remarkably predjudiced, without really knowing the real attitudes of those they have singled out for name calling. Just like anyone else.
The name of the Inn? The Bucanneer. Maybe orientationists make their own stereotypes, subconsciously.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Glenn - For the moment, I’ll assume you mean your proposal with a straight face.
You wrote:
If that is your objective, does your proposal for showers based on sexual orientation succeed or fail?
Your proposal fails to meet your stated goal since gay men would be in a space in which people who might find them attractive would be able to see them naked (as would lesbians).
Your proposed locker room solution also fails because it ignores the reality that a great many gay persons do not self identify as gay. There remains a social stigma as well as very real dangers for self identifying as a gay person in many communities. Your proposed showers divided according to sexual orientation would guarantee (like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) that closeted gay men would continue to shower with straight men- and “look at them in the shower”.
IOW, you would not actually remove gay men from straight men’s showers - you would remove only openly gay men; like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, your solution would guarantee that the gay men who are most emotionally healthy and most likely to have satisfying honest sex lives and therefore least likely to misbehave in the locker room are the ones most likely to be removed from the locker room. Which, like DADT, suggests to me the issue isn’t gay men but straight men’s discomfort with knowing they share their locker rooms and showers with gay men.
Gay conservatives Andew Sullivan and Bruce Bawer have argued that institutionalizing anti-gay bias creates incentives for gay persons to be dishonest about their sexuality, while punising precisely those persons who are most at ease with their sexual orientation, and thus in the best position to not only model healthy behavior but to create a healthy environment for other glbt persons.
It’s clear the locker room issue is a big one for you. There are some obvious solutions - if you don’t want to run the risk, you could avoid public locker rooms. You could change under your towel, you could request special facilities for yourself. Or you could look at your comments in the larger context of attitudes toward the body and nudity. Does your discomfort with being seen naked by someone who might be attracted to you extend only to gay men or does it include straight women?
The locker room is a complex space - it is a public space, one which is generally governed by the broad laws about public convenience - like restaurants, shopping malls, grocery stores, it is open to the public and therefore cannot discriminate on the basis of identity; it is governed by rules of behavior that are nebulous and ill-defined. Add in our cultural discomfort with the body and the locker room becomes a place in which tremendous ambivalence and ambiguity are experienced.
As to your welcome for gay people - your use of the epithet “fags” certainly makes it appear that you are not as welcoming as you claim. If you don’t wan to be accused of being either heterosexist or homophobic, don’t use the language of prejudice.
Far from being the “gotcha” that you imagine it to be, your example of gay bars disallowing straight people is and remains one of the challenges in oppressed communities - the struggle between separationist and integrationist desires. Within many oppressed communities there will always be people who desire to create a separate space - thus women’s only spaces, gay only spaces, African-American only spaces. The debate can be taken to absurd extremes - should you allow transwomen to participate in women’s conferences? Only post-operative transwomen? Should you allow people who self-identify as female no matter what gender they were born? Only persons who were born biologically female?
Persons who have been targeted for discrimination often create separate spacesso they can safely explore their identity and unpack their experiences. Each year, the Utah AIDS foundation hosts the Gay Men’s Health Summit. While the summit doesn’t exclude people from attending, in the gay men’s only workshops there is a freedom and honesty that does not emerge in workshops which include women or heterosexuals. By contrast, my church is Open and Affirming but the majority of members are heterosexual; glbt members of the congregation are fully integrated into the life of the church.
So long as glbt persons face prejudice and discrimination, there will always be cogent arguments for creating gay only spaces. On a lighter note, I’m sure that straight men only go to gay bars because that’s where you get the best cosmos.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
glenn says, ” I appreciate the fact that men screwing men has opened up the field for the remaining men for the avialiable women. ”
From what I understand the percentage of homosexuality in the general population is roughly the same for men and for women, so there goes that snide comment.
glenn’s comments in this thread have all the signs of classic projection.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Jenni. I am having fun, and getting the reactions desired. Very predictable, and with their own bias. Hey, I hijacked thread, and Cliff let me, because he figures it serves, it doesn’t, the attitudes you hold are clearly minority, especially where you live. Consider that some of us are just pushing back against what has become nonsensical.
Uh Jenni, since we expect the girls percentage to be equal, is it really? Germans figure gays make up 3-4% of the population. We are simply thankful that there are gay men and appreciate them. My comment is this is what I tell homophobes, not necessarily what I believe.
I’m not the only person that sees the double standard.
Don’t self identify as gay? Man do these folks have problems. It must surely suck. They aren’t the rest of our problems though, and the associated behavior in relation to unwanted viewing surely is. Looking at folks in the shower isn’t really a sexual issue. It’s just rude. Same as looking at folks in their personal places. If you don’t have business with a person and just watch them for “observance” sake, you are just rude.
Fags, straights, you got a lexicon, why don’t you print it.?Include what we’re supposed to call people, races too, according to Glendon. What a bunch of crap.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Glendon; you can gaze up my naked ass with any motivation you like, this is only an exercise, and is to be passed on to those who wish to better understand motivations of activist gays.
I don’t have a problem with nudity in front of anyone. I can only remember being leered at by the gay guy about 50 at the Midway spring. Doesn’t bother me, he ‘aint gettin any, and the human form is beautiful.
He drove up to the concrete abutment in his King Ranch F-350, and his 20 yr old boyfriend. What an ass. In talking to him he sells crystal singing bowls for living. The custom trophy F-350 seemed a little incongruous with the supposed spiritual nature of the items he trades in. He was immodest in the extreme, in short, rude. I have no problem with anyones sexuality, it is whether they have any modicum of respect for those with differing sensibilities.
You don’t like being referred to as a fag, and many men do not like being looked at in the locker room. Give some, and get some. Respect.
Finally as an openly gay male, it might be inappropriate for you to continue to shower with other men, as it is inappropriate. For those who cannot or will not come out, we have to live with the benefit of the doubt, but as you are declared, you have no business in a male only shower.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
and the gotcha, whatever claptrap you make about private places for those that believe themselves victimized by society, under US Constitutional Law, the practise is illegal, unless the said establishment is a private club, and even then, it is illegal when pushed.
Blacks denied entry at the golf club comes to mind as a similar affair.
Hey, the Toronto gays that came to our place had no issue being called fags, as this is what they called themselves, amongst themselves, ha, it all very revealing, and at the same time fun. I would stand up for them anytime, most left a very clean room.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:04 am
***sigh***
At long last, poor Glenn retreats to the troll’s final refuge - trying to convince himself that all along he’s had a brilliant rhetorical scheme and it has fabulously come to fruition. His last couple comments with their attempts at coherence are all part of the Troll MO. I expect his next comment here will declare his brilliant rhetorical victory on the topic.
I usually don’t feed the trolls but sometimes I can’t resist. Oh well.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Glendon, you have not addressed any points I made, basically because you don’t want to. As you say, Glendon, you are a creature of habit then, and cannot resist the bait. What I have learned is that your interpretation of relations between orientations is rigid, and not very open to discussion. Vocabulary makes up such an important aspect as to whether you think someone is “correct” or not. Names don’t matter to me, it is actions. your creepy observing speaks volumes about you. At least in script.
Of the men I am currently polling, I have about 90% agreement. The other 10% could be gay.
Funny, you call me a troll, sure you ‘aint trolling in the shower? Either way, it doesn’t matter, your orientation is not wanted in the mens locker room by my anecdotal polling. Do hetero men have this right to be in an environment where unwanted attentions are availaible to those that would take them, as women would? Without blathering, answer it.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Trolling MO 102: Ignore everything that’s been written in response to your comments and get aggrieved that your “points” have been ignored. What you don’t ignore, you deliberately misread.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:30 am
All you have clamed Glendon is that you do sexualize the men you are peeping on. This doesn’t make your behavior any less disgusting, and unseemly.
As you claim the post is chronically off topic, and as such a “troll” post, perhaps not here(it sadly helps define what could be a serious site) but in most forums.
Let’s go point to point..First discuss the civil rights violations being conducted by gay bars in Vancouver BC. Maybe we can compromise and have straights sit by the bathroom, or the kitchen, like Rosa at the back the bus.
It is this “special’ status that gays want that are impeding the mainstreaming of their lifestyles. Drop the double standard and you might move forward a bit faster, and with far less animosity and bitterness from those that can’t stand your group.
Just a suggestion. For my part, be assured I don’t care, but have enjoyed your rationalizing and have furthured my understanding of the characeture of what gays appear to be, to those not of their culture.
How’s life under your bridge Glendon?
June 7th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Sorry Glendon, the crux of your claim to equality in the mens shower, is that you do NOT claim to sexulize men in the shower. Het men don’t care about that, anymore than some women would if men were permitted to observe them in their locker rooms.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Troll Behavior: Claim that your issue is the only issue and other people haven’t said the magic words to make you feel better so they have to address whatever it is the troll deems the issue to be. IOW - make me happy and listen to me cry when I’m not.
Note, also, the troll’s competing and un-ironic demands: You must address my issues seriously, but this isn’t serious to me at all so it doesn’t matter what you say. The troll of course doesn’t want dialog or discussion; the troll believes he/she has some valid point and will insist endlessly that it MUST be addressed to demonstrate the seriousness of others in the discussion, while the troll rejects any attempt at actual seriousness for him/herself.
You will also the troll’s attempt to assert that he/she has “learned” something from the exchange while they continue to circle the same issue they started with - having ignored everything else that has been written. They don’t like the answers given, so they’ll just keep asking the question hoping for answer that relieves the dissonance in their psyche, one that allows them an emotional pressure valve to at last relieve their own unease.
Of course, trolls will attempt to start arguments by making personal attacks one other persons - accusing them of all sorts of bad behavior that the troll has invented in his/her own febrile imaginings.
The sad truth, actually, is that the troll might actually be onto something that could be a serious discussion but the troll’s inability to articulate anything beyond their personal emotional issue hampers the ability to address the issue they may (inadvertantly) be raising.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Goes back to simple respect. For example no one believed Arabs were serious about kicking our ass, now look where we are.
The idea that gay men have no business in a male common shower is serious Glendon, it is that you don’t think so that describes why there is much resistence in general society to what you promote. In a word, you are disrespectful.
Glendon ever listen to KGO out of San Fransisco? There is a fag(self described)Karel,who hosts there in the evenings 8-12. He is very enlightened, and is usually pointing out the hypocrisy of his gay fellows. Two days ago he decried the Pride Parade, as a freak show, that only hurts the gay community, as well as being disrespectful to the public that does not approve of such shameless self promotion of lifestyle. He is where this argument comes from.
You can call him anyday for free and express to him why you think he is a troll. I find him of common sense, and he shows at great deal of respect to those who do not wish to know all about the gay lifestyle or have the details publically incorporated. Tune in sometime, do you good.
I don’t care that you are in my shower, but others do. However if you are caught looking at men too long, I would be the first to snap your ass with wet towel. Should make your leerings more exciting, now the element of risk plays with it.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:51 am
[...] of our discomfort with ourselves and our own bodies. I’ve written about the body in the past, about the way our culture teaches a deep distrust of the body and teaches us to be ashamed of [...]