February 10, 2014

Local lib makes the case for dissolution of gender-based restrooms, showers

Here's Delaware Douche at the LGOMB (that's Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) making the case:

Whatever locker room disruption there was by having a gay teammate was minimal and was overcome, and did not prevent the team from having success. And yet there were the bigots on the radio this morning, talking about how it would disrupt the lockerroom, because they all shower together and the gay one would looking with lust at his teammates, echoing Jonathan Vilma. I always laugh at that. If a gay teammate looks at your naked body, so that fuck what? What harm is being done to you? Are you so insecure in your manhood that you donít want any one looking? (Indeed, wouldnít you be more worried if the gay teammate was not looking? But I digress).

Douche is referencing the story of Michael Sam, a top NFL prospect from the University of Missouri who just the other day came out as gay. You gotta give Sam his due taking this action before the NFL draft, since this news could potentially affect his NFL "worth." Still, reading about his story, it was pretty much common knowledge among the town and Sam's teammates that he was gay. As long as he doesn't pull a Chris Kluwe and constantly yammer about being gay so as to distract from the team, he should be an asset to any NFL squad.

But back to what DD writes above, and it's a point I've written about before, mainly regarding gays in the military: If the matter of straight and gay men showering together is a matter of "so the f*** what," then so the f*** what if straight men and women shower together, right? Douche asks "what harm is being done?" if a gay man checks you out in the shower; what harm is there if a straight dude checks out a female in the shower, eh?

Please, someone fill me in as to how this is a bad comparison. If you say that "the two instances aren't the same," be sure to explain precisely why. If Douche's treatise is legit, yet mine is not, then you are basically saying that homosexuals have greater hormonal urge control than straights. That sounds pretty heterophobic to me.

Posted by Hube at February 10, 2014 04:10 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I'll try to be precise and concise (the latter not being my strong suit!)

It's because your belief appears to be that your wife, daughter, or sister have the same chance of fending off a potential unwanted advance from a man in the shower as you, I, and Jonathan Vilma.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

"then you are basically saying that homosexuals have greater hormonal urge control than straights."

Definitely not saying that. Studies consistently show that in this arena, men operate basically the same way -- regardless of the objects of their desire.

Posted by: dan at February 10, 2014 05:52 PM

Regarding Vilma specifically, just to get it off my chest: I'd be so f****** embarrassed to be him. How do you go home to your wife and say you're scared a guy might look at your pee pee?

I actually had a dude get a little verbally inappropriate with me during a chat on the bus the other day. But it was fine. I didn't go crying to my mommy about it. It's what women live with every day after they hit puberty -- and it's a hell of a lot scarier for them, for the reasons I alluded to above.

I somehow managed to handle it. Vilma probably can do, if he digs deep.

Posted by: dan at February 10, 2014 05:59 PM

"It's because your belief appears to be that your wife, daughter, or sister have the same chance of fending off a potential unwanted advance from a man in the shower as you, I, and Jonathan Vilma."

Not necessarily. But then again, by saying this you're offending a whole different set of "progressive" beliefs regarding gender.

Realistically, the chances are indeed greater that a woman would have more difficult time fending off a man than another man would. But if we're talking locker rooms and/or other common areas, the chances of that happening are much more remote.

Posted by: Hube at February 10, 2014 06:14 PM

Let's be honest what the dans of this world are saying -- women have a greater right than men to be free from sexual leering and harassment. In other words, dan is a sexist pig who is masking his sexism in progressive blather.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 10, 2014 06:18 PM

Oh, and as for Michael Sam -- I'm a season ticket holder for the Houston Texans. If Sam can cut it on the professional level, I'd love to have him on the team -- and I don't care if his sexual preference is for women, men, barnyard animals or rubber chickens. If his skills are not up to that level, I don't want him around even if he is a straight guy with the moral rectitude of Tim Tebow.

Oh, and by the way -- coming out as gay took no courage on Sam's part. As Larry Elder pointed out, it would have been much more courageous for him to come out as a black conservative.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 10, 2014 06:23 PM

In addition, dan, are you arguing that the main general gender separation we see in society is due to the strength difference? Or the sexual difference? And what is the general difference in strength between straight men and gay men? Do you know?

And what about the military? Why should the genders be separated there if gays openly serve? Are they not bound by certain rules and regulations? If gays bunk with the same barracks w/straights, then why not men in the same barracks as women? What is the difference in chances of "hooking up" if all are mixed together, genders and sexual preferences?

Posted by: Hube at February 10, 2014 06:25 PM

"Let's be honest what the dans of this world are saying -- women have a greater right than men to be free from sexual leering and harassment."

Excellent point, RWR.

Posted by: Hube at February 10, 2014 06:28 PM

"it would have been much more courageous for him to come out as a black conservative."

Another excellent point, and totally accurate.

Posted by: Hube at February 10, 2014 06:32 PM

I could care less what a football player does in his personal life, provided he doesn't pull a Kluwe and distract from the team; I am a Vikings fan, and many got sick of his nonsense, not just me.

And excellent points, RWR.

Posted by: Carl at February 10, 2014 07:14 PM

Dan must be of the camp who thinks that harassment is okay when the genders are reversed.

Posted by: Carl at February 10, 2014 07:17 PM

I have attacked none of you personally, and I'd ask that the ad hominem stuff be kept to a minimum. I don't think I deserve to be called a "pig."

Regarding coming out as a black conservative: I'd personally disagree. I think it'd be a double-edged sword. Obviously he'd run into some opposition from black Democrats. But the NFL is packed full of white conservatives and a smattering of black conservatives. He'd fine plenty of allies.

However, coming out as gay, you're going to (initially) be hit from both sides. A lot has been written about the African-American community's "traditional" views on homosexuality

Look -- in the end, this is a non-issue, and everyone will get along just fine. I may bash Vilma here in a weak moment, but I have faith in him. Almost everyone comes around. Just ask Dick Cheney and the millions of conservatives who love and accept a gay relative, and are now strong LGBT allies.

In 10 years, no one will be talking about any of this. The rate of progress is mind-boggling.

Posted by: dan at February 10, 2014 07:40 PM

Carl: Harassment is harassment, regardless of gender. Hate crimes are hate crimes, regardless of the perpetrator, etc.

Posted by: dan at February 10, 2014 07:43 PM

Also, Carl: Agree that you can't be a distraction to the team. Though I disagree that it's actually possible to distract an NFL player with something as trivial as what the punter said on Twitter. Fans? Easily distracted.

Some might say that stumping with G.W. Bush, as Tom Brady did, would be distracting as well. But I don't know if you'd see it that way.

Posted by: dan at February 10, 2014 07:50 PM

As far as Tom Brady stumping for Bush, I don't think there is a comparison to Kluwe. He didn't run his mouth off to newspapers or pen vitriolic articles on Deadspin or accuse his special teams coach of being a so-called "bigot" (without any proof, i might add) or anything like that. He seems to have kept it quiet, because I've never heard him say anything political.

Posted by: Carl at February 10, 2014 09:37 PM

I'm a conservative and frankly I don't care who goes out with who. I just don't think it should've been the big issue that everyone is focused on, especially when we're in debt, Obamacare is the disaster that many predicted would be, and so on.

Posted by: Carl at February 10, 2014 09:39 PM

I apologize if I came across as angry in my rely, Dan, regarding harassment. Seems we're in agreement on that, in actuality.

Posted by: Carl at February 10, 2014 09:54 PM

Sorry, dan -- swinish attitudes are usually met with the epithet of "pig". Or so the feminists tell us.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 10, 2014 10:46 PM

By the way -- I wrote this much more extensive piece about Sam's announcement. He's a local boy down here in Houston, and I actually got to see him play when he was in high school. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/347067.php

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 10, 2014 10:49 PM

Oh, and remember the facts about Kluwe -- he was one of the worst punters in the league his last season. Is it any wonder that he was cut and not picked up elsewhere?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 10, 2014 11:06 PM

Posting a comment for dan, who was blocked by the spam filter:

"In addition, dan, are you arguing that the main general gender separation we see in society is due to the strength difference? Or the sexual difference?"

There are many issues all mixed up here, including being unclear on whether we're talking about stealing a glance at someone vs. coming on to them, vs. outright assault....and whether the latter two would even be issues given security and HR departments and the like.

There's a fascinating discussion in which conservative Will Cain (I'd never heard of him, but I like him) puts forth some very interesting and thoughtful responses to Chris Kluwe. It's at CNN and the link won't take here, so feel free to search it out there.

Basically, I agree with Cain on some of this...at the very least, it's caused me to think about it more compassionately -- in a way that being likened to swine did not.

Anyway, I still believe that the gender/strength issue matters, and it's foolish to pretend it does not exist, or to call someone sexists for stating the obvious. You guys, as conservatives, are typically beyond such foolish political correctness (in fact, Hube, you both agreed with RWR that I was sexist AND said I was violating the typical progressive playbook! Which is it? ;) Anyway, it's not sexist. I'd encourage you to go ask as many women as you like -- liberal AND conservative -- whether Vilma's situation and theirs are the same. And Cain concedes this to some degree. But it's not cut and dry.

Again, this'll be a dead issue before long. It's half dead now.

Posted by: Hube at February 11, 2014 07:28 AM

"There are many issues all mixed up here, including being unclear on whether we're talking about stealing a glance at someone vs. coming on to them, vs. outright assault."

Actually, dan, YOU made the issue about assault. In his original post, Delaware Dunce wrote "If a gay teammate looks at your naked body, so that fuck what? What harm is being done to you? Are you so insecure in your manhood that you donít want any one looking? To which I responded "then so the f*** what if straight men and women shower together, right?"

Are women so insecure in their womanhood? As RWR said, why would it be OK to leer and/or harass someone of the same sex, but not someone of the opposite?

And why should I ask women if the situation is the same? Why can't I ask other men how they'd feel? But as for women, liberal women would oppose it from a "dominant patriarchy" standard whereas conservative women would oppose it from a traditional gender role standard.

Posted by: Hube at February 11, 2014 07:41 AM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?