The showers in the locker room discussion is just silly. IF you have a problem showering with the possibility of a gay male looking at you then you can shower elsewhere or at a different time. Its not about decency or people's insecurities, its about people being idiotic and ignorant. In the military we were subjected to group showers in training environments and I have to say I have never liked showering in front of other guys but I did it because at the end of the day it wasn't a big deal. There were men who simply could not get naked in front of another man and they would wait until everyone was done taking a shower and take one alone or they would wake up before anyone else did to take a shower alone. That was THEIR issue and they changed THEIR routine. If you are uncomfortable showering around a gay man or around men in general that is your problem and the team doesn't have to make separate facilities just to single out the gay men. This whole argument is for the lack of a better word just stupid. I mean people need to grow up and be men about this.
Who said that secretly gay men showering with heterosexual men was not also "indecent"(your word not mine)? Why cant you just admit that a sexual tension exists between gay and straight men showering together that is very similar to the one that exists between men and women showering together?
We are talking about proactive approach. Obviously if there is an existing facility that provides gang showers, that is the way to go. As far as proactive approach, I design these things for the UF. UF has a lot of dorms. Student comfort and safety is of utmost importance, considering cultural diversity as well. Most dorms are old historic buildings that have common bathrooms with gang showers. UF provides partitions that make gang showers into individual showers. Other than prison gang showers where monitoring of inmates takes precedence, I do not see why partitions should not be provided in all other gang shower applications.
Because it's not true. I have showered next to gay men and never felt sexual tension. Sex doesn't even enter my mind when in public showering/locker room situations. Six years in the navy by the way. If you do feel "sexual tension", that's your issue. Not wanting to be insulting, but you might have a happier life if you explored that tension. Gender divisions for public showering have existed in our culture since we were children. They have not for sexuality. That is a very basic truth that you are refusing to acknowledge. Gender is not sexuality. Many cultures don't even have the gender issues we do. In Japan for example, many public bath houses are not gender segregated. Men and women, girls and boys, bathing together! The horror! Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Lets get something straight... I do not have an issue with showering the presence of gay men or women. I am defending those that do because it is a normal feeling for some people to have. Just because you or I do not share those feelings does not mean that those people don't have a right to feel that way. I am unfamiliar with Japanese culture but I salute them if they are more mature about nudity than we are here. The only thing I have argued is that I can understand if a team passed on an openly gay person based on that reason. Being openly gay complicates the locker rooms dynamics and a team should not feel obligated to accomidate that if they chose not to. Gay activists immeadiately came back with asking how it complicates things, which has been answered and then dismissed as being rooted in homophobia. Its not homophobia to acknowledge there is a sexual tension that comes with gay and straight men showering together. It might be a reality in every single circumstance but it does happen. Its a fact. Its not unnatuaral to feel uncomfortable being naked in front of someone who is attracted to you, especially so if you do not feel those same feelings back.
You can feel how you want. Your feelings don't trump some one else's right to employment. Also, those feelings aren't "sexual tension" they're homophobia. Edit: And I'm not a gay activist, nor is it only gay activists that find this issue ridiculous. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
I would think most NFL locker rooms have partitions in the showers? I'm not sure, never been in one but I would imagine that they have them. Most gyms do. Thats why its even more ridiculous to think this was an issue. No one is forcing anyone to parade around naked. Some men waltz around the gym naked, I've never really understood why but hey thats what they want to do. I don't see what the issue is, if you aren't comfortable being naked in the locker room then don't do it, go behind a partition or in a stall and change there. People here are actually suggesting segregating the gay males which is over the top and offensive, obviously.
Here is the brand new state of the art Jaguars shower facility. http://beforeitsnews.com/sports/201...-wants-some-home-games-in-london-2444880.html
That's the thing though, there is no law that says gay men can not be hired in the NFL. No team is obligated to hire them either. Its not a law it is a choice. If a team has no gay players on it and that offends you, choose not to support them, that's your choice. There were people in this thread suggesting that a team could be sued for not hiring someone because they are gay. They also insisted that it is an immoral choice to make. When people say things like that I push back.
From the NFL policy on discrimination: The choice has been made. What are you pushing back against? Wanting the NFL to follow its own policies and not allow discrimination? There are many states (about 20) that have anti sexual orientation discrimination employment laws. I bet every team will play at least one game in one of those states. Plus, it’s in the collective bargaining agreement, so the NFL and the NFLPA could be sued for violating that policy.
No actually I'm not OK with any of those things nor did I suggest anything even close to them or anything which could be logically connected with those things. You came up with all of those things out of thin air and none of them have anything to do with what I was suggesting. It's simple. If YOU have a problem with showering with a man you believe to be gay or that you know to be gay, then YOU can deal with it. Shower when you get home, or simply wait 5 damn minutes until he's out of the shower, then go take your shower. You are the one with your own private insecurity and so you can modify your habit to the alarmingly simple degree necessary to avoid your private displeasure of showering with a man you believe might be or know to be gay. Your problem, you deal with it.
Exactly. There are and have been many cultures where public coed bathing is not considered a big deal. Not to mention nude beaches where public coed nude tanning is not a big deal and does not produce sexual tension. Basically people are taking their own private fantasies of what is going on in peoples' heads and what happens in certain situations and pretending that they are universal. Sort of like outlawing pillows in girls dormitories because we all know that girl pillow fights and lesbian sex will ensue.
It is actually against the law to not hire someone because they are gay. Honestly its shocking to hear someone actually say that it isn't illegal, it absolutely is and there is no arguing the fact at all. Choosing to not hire someone because they are gay is discrimination and illegal.
I'd shower there, that is a nice facility. Why would anyone worry about a gay guy being there when they have a playground like that?
I did. When I hear him say, "exposure to indecent acts or thoughts when you are naked and vulnerable", the only thing I can think of IS homophobia b/c there's nothing whatsoever to support his ignorant, obtuse statement. It's circular logic b/c he's creating a premise based on imaginary information. All of it is in his head. He's suggesting that gay males can't control themselves, especially in a professional setting, and will be banging each other in the presence of the entire team as if it's a bedroom in a voyeur party. What he's suggesting is wrong and demeaning toward gays on so many levels it's not funny.
Actually, it is still legal in 29 states (including FL) to fire an employee just for being gay in the public sector. The Senate passed ENDA (empl non discrimination act) in Nov, but the house leader refuses to support a vote, thus stalling any federal protection, keeping it a state by state decision. Just look at Kansas this past week trying to pass a bill allowing anyone to withhold service, restaurants to doctors, if they are gay. If it sounds crazy, it's cuz it is. It's crazier that most people have no idea, and that's why Sam coming out is a big deal.
In many states, counties and cities it is illegal. But as it turns out it's not a federal law after all.
What I think is most impressive about this is Sam revealed his orientation to his teammates in AUGUST, yet the rest of the world didn't find out until he announced it. To me that indicates a great amount of respect for Sam from his teammates. I did a backdated google search to see if I could find instances of the beans prematurely being spilled or even rumors that Sam was gay, and I came up empty. The most I could dig up was from a Mizzou fan forum that posted in October about a rumor that a Mizzou player is gay, but no one was identified. A common theme I notice among those arguing against gays in the locker room is they for some reason ignore Sam's history as a football player/teammate as if he didn't become gay until he announced it. Michael Sam is NOT every gay man; therefore, any generalized objection about a homosexual in a locker room as it pertains to Michael Sam is unfounded and inapplicable to the point of seeming like a smoke and mirrors attempt to mask homophobia. Let's run down the list of objections I've seen here or anywhere else around the net: problematic for team culture.[yet Sam didn't prevent a cinderella type Missouri team from playing in the SEC title. Quite the contrary actually.] will be persistently uncomfortable for heterosexual males. [Missou players knowingly spent a season in the showers with Sam and loved him as a teammate, and he was a joyous heartbeat of the team, so where's this exaggerated uncomfortability to speak of?] b/c of an inability of homosexuals to contain themselves, it will lead to indecent acts that heterosexual males shouldn't be exposed to [yet no such acts have occurred with Sam or any of the other homosexuals who graced NFL showers over the years. This homophobic fear falsely suggests that either gays don't become gay until they announce it or that they haven't existed in football until now. However, college and pro players have been showering with homosexuals for years, so where are all these instances of "indecent behavior" that straight males would be subjected to? will lead to gawking at straight males, causing feelings of vulnerability and sexual tension. [see above] the belief that homosexual males make straight males uncomfortable naked and therefore should have segregated showers b/c it's unfair and disrespectful to force straight males to make accommodations for homosexuals.... and that a failure to segregate homosexuals, like women are from men, represents a double standard. This one really gets me b/c, with all due respect to those who believe this way, it's heavily bigoted, circular, and sanctimonious in so many ways I don't know where to begin. Firstly it insinuates that straight males are only uncomfortable naked around gay males, which couldn't be further from the truth. It's incredibly common, thanks to how society has us conditioned, for many straight males to feel uncomfortable when naked around any male regardless of sexual orientation. This is so extreme that even if a perfect 10 gorgeous woman begged a straight guy to bang her, except do so under the stipulation that he share her with another straight male but no crossing swords or anything of the such, a large percentage of men would begrudgingly reject her. Secondly, in the back of every homophobic male's mind is a belief that it's necessary to feel uncomfortable when his dick is exposed around ANY male within an eyeshot of it b/c he knows gay men exist but doesn't know who they specifically are, so he subjects himself to a constant state of uneasy precaution just in case the guy next to him happens to be gay, meaning- the "ignorance is bliss" argument isn't as applicable as would be led to believe. Thirdly, the double standard that would exist wouldn't involve a refusal to segregate gays and straights in showers; it would pertain to the homophobic belief that there suddenly needs to be segregated showers for gays even though straight guys have been uncomfortably showering among other straight guys for years, b/c if the goal were to actually eliminate uncomfortable feelings via the use of segregation then ALL those individuals who feel uncomfortable would be segregated, not just the ones who feel uncomfortable around gays. After all, uncomfortability is still uncomfortability. You either cater to everyone who feels uncomfortable or you don't do it at all. It's funny that it wasn't until a future NFL player announced his homosexuality that people came out of the woodworks to protest "uncomfortability" in the showers. Where were all these protestors a month ago? a year ago? Ten years ago? Unless a person has a documented history of arguing the uncomfortability angle in general, regardless of sexual orientation, then he's forfeited all rights to suddenly do so at this juncture. Fourthly, all this segregation talk is foolishly operating under the assumption that creating separate showers for gays will automatically make every gay player hop right in it and announce his orientation to the world. Fifthly, the supposed slap in the face wouldn't be against those specific straight males whom the homophobes suggest a "humanitarian" need to run to the aid of to prevent uncomfortable feelings in showers around homosexuals; the slap in the face is against the straight males who've felt generally uncomfortable in public showers or open urinals for years w/o anyone protesting with such fervor on their behalf..... and then it's another slap in their face to suggest segregated showers based sexual orientation in order to avoid uncomfortable feelings about homosexuality all while completely ignoring the feelings of those who are uncomfortable showering in public in general. It's like saying the only valid uncomfortability is if it's directed toward gays. Considering all the current veiled objections have been squashed, the only way this homophobic argument could have any validity is if it's believed a player coming out will somehow cause more players to become gay or more gays to become football players, neither of which is realistic. Deciding to come out or not won't change the fact that the person is gay. If there are 100 homosexuals currently playing in the NFL and those 100 don't come out today, there's still gonna be 100 homosexuals in the league tomorrow.... and if showers become segregated today and those 100 homosexuals decide to keep their orientation private, there will still gonna be 100 homosexuals in the straight showers tomorrow. If the thought of professionally sharing a shower with an unthreatening gay male is such an emotional crisis for some individuals, then they can use their damn degrees to get a normal 9-5 job where they can do all their showering at home like the rest of the population. However, if they wanna get paid millions then they can STFU, do their jobs, get their asses in and out of the showers like everyone else has done for years, done so without uncomfortable passes made at them, without witnessing homosexual acts, and have likely showered with greater mental comfortability than gay players who are most likely more concerned about avoiding homosexual persecution than acting on homosexual desires in the showers, so I'm guessing the last person wanting to draw attention to himself in the shower IS a homosexual b/c he KNOWS the severity of what his actions might bring about, regardless of his intent. Conversely, a straight guy doesn't have to worry much if at all about the consequences of an accidental downward glance or an innocent smack on the *** b/c there's not a scary, discouraging history of straight guys getting their asses kicked, killed, fired, not hired, or disowned by friends & family just for being straight. Here's an article about him from the Kansas City Star back in October:
