I wonder where one might find information on areas of occurrences. I mean, I'd like to know where the greatest areas of density of these occurrences are. You know, for safety reasons of course. Not like I'd actually ever want to be sexually assaulted by a woman. A tall, blonde, well endowed woman. In leather. With a whip.
This is frustrating. Your views on sexuality are childlike. I wasn't comparing that to being hit by meteor, I was trying to get you to understand a VERY basic concept about risk assessment. I've done plenty of research and it affects less than one percent of the male population. Women, on the other hand, are sexually assaulted at closer to 25% of the female population. For you to act as if both happen frequently enough that they both require the same protections is asinine. And again, I'm not advocating for women and men to be in the same locker room, so your tangent is pointless anyway. Males are males. Females are females. What attracts them is none of your damn business. And again, the question serves no damn purpose anyway, because they can lie and you'd still be showering next to a gay guy and never know it. So even from your point of view, its better that you not know.
Wow...this question got. Couldn't this had just been the order of questioning? Hey are you married? No. Have a girlfriend or anything? No. Are you interested in women? No? So your totally just focused on football, thats great. It doesn't mean they just came right out and asked if he liked women or men. About having gay teammates in the lockerroom. I don't agree with it. The analogy of a woman showering with a bunch of men is correct. The danger arguement is a joke. You think if Incognito likes Carpenters curly hair Dan can do anything about it?
The numbers I've seen were at around 1.4% for men and around 20% for women. No doubt it is far greater for women, like I have said repeatedly. However, when doing the calculations... based on an estimate that there are around 138 million men living in America... that puts it at 1,932,000 men in America have been sexually assulted. Thats still a VERY significant amount of people. Continue to disregard that if you choose... The puropose of dividing mens and womens locker rooms is to protect them from each other... based on the traditional thinking that women are attracted to men and men are attracted to women. But that gets thrown out the window with homosexuality... which is why I'm using men and women to get my point across about homosexuality.
It wasnt an article I just googled today or anything. A classmate of mine in college wrote a paper on the topic, so I dont know the exact %, but the number 1.4 sticks with me for some reason. It really doesnt matter what the number is though IMO. You said you had read that it is less than 1%? Lets do the math for a number even as low as 0.5% of men in America for ****s and giggles. That would put it at 690,000 men. Way over a half a million men in America that have been sexually assulted. Thats still a very significant number of people... that shouldnt be swept aside and disregarded.
Do you or do you not understand, that I'm not arguing for women and men to be in the same locker room?
Yes I do. However, you are arguing for gay men to be in the same lockerroom as straight men. And the same things that make it inappropriate for men and women to share a lockerroom make it inappropriate for gay men to share a lockerroom with straight men. It's inappropriate b/c of the potential threat for sexual harrassment/assault to occur... But according to you... men getting sexually assaulted isn't a big deal... which is a disturbing double standard in our society.
Which is why it has been made illegal. However, there are a lot of things that are acceptable in modern society that shouldn't be, and visa versa. EDIT: To add further, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm on my phone. But I believe that up until 1992, the federal law defined rape as a forcible sexual act upon a woman... and it wasn't up until 1992 that they changed the definition to make it uni-sex. Does that mean it was ok for women to rape men prior to 1992 because it was either accepted, disregarded, or flatly ignored by modern society? 30 years ago, a man going to the police saying that he was raped would have got him laughed at b/c of the views of society at that time. Did that make it right?
I'm having trouble understanding the distinction between the 2 that you are trying to make. Mind clearifying?
I wish you'd stop misquoting me. I never said it wasn't big deal or acceptable. I said the frequency that it happens at is so low that it is not acceptable to discriminate to prevent. Saying it barely happens is not the same thing as saying its acceptable. Secondly, the numbers that show men being sexually assaulted by women as low as it is, tells us nothing about straight men being assaulted by gay men. That number is also ridiculously low. Low enough that it doesn't make discrimination ok. Women weren't allowed to show their legs at one point in time, because it made people sexually uncomfortable. This is no different and will change in time. Also, its ridiculous to tell someone to do more research, when you're whole point wrests on a paper someone else wrote, you heard about one time.
Why? Gay is gay. Are you suggesting that gay women are more in control of their sexual urges than gay men? Can they hold it in whereas gay men can't? The fact is gay football players are in the locker rooms right now with zero incidents occuring. There would not be an upsurge in incidents if the gay man was out rather than in the closet. The same way that you have respect for a female co-worker is the same respect that these gay football players show their co-workers. And if they don't, there will be consequences, just like there are consequences for men who sexually harass their secretary
Someone staring at you and wanting to sleep with you is perfectly acceptable. Someone acting upon those feelings inappropriately is not acceptable.
Absolutely not, and its as reprehensible as considering someone's sexual orientation when you are interviewing them for a job.
Someone staring at you while thinking about sleeping with you while you are exposed in a locker room or bath room is perfectly acceptable? No... no it is not. Thats called sexual harassment...
Not sure what you mean there. NFL players + cheerleaders in the same shower are ok, as long as there is no actual threat?
My point wasnt resting on that paper... or the 1.4% number. The number was irrelevant. But now that I'm home and not on my phone, I've googled it for you. According to RAINN, the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, states that the 1.4% I used was FAR too low (or, more than likely more information has come about since I heard that paper almost a decade ago). The actual number is more than double... at 3%, or 2.78 million men: That is NOT a small number... or something that should be disregarded as "not worthy of trying to prevent". And again... my WHOLE point in even talking about women (and this is where I lose you, b/c we fundimentally disagree on this part... and will never agree regardless of how many times we go in circles)... is that women's and men's locker rooms were divided to protect each other from sexually harrassing/assulting each other... which is why it should apply to gay and straight men as well... b/c a gay man is just as capable of sexually harrassing/assulting a straight male as a female is. Both females and gay males seek out sexual interaction with males... and thats why they shouldnt be in the same locker room...
Didn't get through the whole thread. I agree that I really have a hard time believing Jeff Ireland could be stupid or arrogant enough to ask this question. But it's good to see everyone is in agreement that it's a super inappropriate question. So on the off chance it was Ireland, I wouldn't expect to hear anyone defending him as they do with other certain incidents say like -
Dave wasnt the worst at hireing friends that title goes to Parcells and Sparano . my Problem with Wanny was his draft picks on defense and his firing of MIKE Westoff and Paul Borderaux the oline coach and replacing him with Tony Wise . the one thing that ididnt understand was why did Wanny Fired wr coach Roobert Ford and the oline Coach ? doesanyone know why that happened ?
The same old Ireland stuff gets old. Kinda like those fans that protested last year because we didn't sign Matt Flynn. Just ridiculous. No matter how great one thinks their football knowledge is it's still not above someone who works in that business. Armchair GM's here make me chuckle. There are actually people who think it would be a good idea to fire him right now. Two months before the draft. It's out of hand and foolish.
What was there to defend? I think Bryant assaulting his own mother has shown the question Ireland asked to be a prudent one.
I think the important question here is what state jurisdictions does the NFL fall under regarding discrimination laws? NFL is registered in NY IIRC, which has pretty strict laws.
That is also not sexual assaults by just women on men and that number also includes child molestation. Do you understand that?
regardless of that question being leagl or not Jeff Ireland is a horible gm and this is going to be exposed when we hae another lossing season because we ddnt sign goo players and we draft another olineman who is injury prone in rd 1 again . Ireland doesnt derserve the pedistal that many here seem hell bent on putting him on But if we sign 5 good players and have a killer draft then i wont ever rip Ireland again.
Ugh... whatever. Fine, its not that number. Since I've said from the beginnning... THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS IRRELEVANT. The actual number is irrelevant b/c whatever you want to put the number at (1 million men? 500,000 men? How about 0.0007% of American males for a total of 100,000?)... it is still WAY too high to be deemed "acceptable" or "not worthy of trying to prevent". Period.
Stringer, I know I'm not changing your mind on this and you won't change mine. That being said to your point I would say here is a list of completely acceptable questions Ireland could have asked: "Do you consider yourself a violent person?" "What was your relationship with your mother like growing up?" "What's your relationship with your mother now?" etc., etc. etc. There's a reason that it's still the butt of jokes and always will be. If it was an appropriate question nobody would have remembered it 2 years later. Appropriate questions typically don't earn you internet memes...
It's still defended because there are fans who think it's actually possible for the question "Is you're mom a prostitute?" to be in an appropriate context.
