Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[unknown]

6.9 Earthquake in Baja. Definitely felt it all the way up here in LA. building moved and everything. that was a good one

and it was pretty funny. literally within seconds, my facebook lit up with earthquake status updates

 

[razoredge]

gays should not be forced to be around people that are uncomfortable with their "gayness"

straight people uncomfortable around "gayness" should not be forced to be around gays

all violations of innate civil liberties, all the rules and laws the sweated vote seekers can come up with will not change this

 

[Matt]

edit: On the other hand, surely there are gay guys that don't want other gay guys ogling them, but they'd have to tolerate it whether they're separate from straight guys or not. And anyway, is there really any good reason to be so paranoid that someone you live with is sexually attracted to you? This kind of issue arguably comes down to the prudishness that is deeply ingrained in our society, and it would be best if we just stopped conditioning these juvenile notions of sexual propriety into our children/peers/whoever. Not that there are many people in the U.S. who are ready to go through with that, but it should still be a goal of ours.

Right, I don't see why it is that big of a problem for people.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Jesus even said otherwise:

Right (even though that's a damn good example of Jesus being a major asshole, which I don't think you can deny he sometimes is/seems to be), but that doesn't mean they're not Christian. It just means they weren't very good at it. Not everyone can be as great at being Christian as you are (and, honestly, why would they want to be when it makes you a discriminating fucking douchebag?), but they're still Christians.

Yo Dakryn, I have one question for you that I want a real answer to. I get that, to you, the homosexual lifestyle is disgusting, inhuman, immoral, etc. but what gives you the right to believe you are entitled to judge another person's private lifestyle choice insomuch as you can actually affect his/her rights through the proper outlets/channels? I think that is where religion becomes intensely dangerous. Having beliefs is perfectly fine, but why are you able to impinge on what someone else does? Isn't your entire belief system about personal entitlement, autonomy and survivalism? If so, and, if you were given the option to choose whether a gay man is allowed to do (insert contentious issue relating to homosexuality and its related lifestyle here) or not, am I wrong in thinking you would indeed vote to restrict his right to do the above thing? Is that not pretty much contrary to what you would normally understand as basic and necessary i.e. that people have their own right to choose what they do, etc.?

I mean, you may play it off like you are reserving (pertinent) judgment on gay people, but really, you would definitely act with clear bias against gay people if given the option to (between allowance and forbidding of a particular, sexual-preference related issue); this represents a major danger of religion, and a major problem with the people who ally themselves with one.

 

[Dak]

6.9 Earthquake in Baja. Definitely felt it all the way up here in LA. building moved and everything. that was a good one

and it was pretty funny. literally within seconds, my facebook lit up with earthquake status updates

Yeha we got shook up here as well.

I would probably agree that if they allow gays to serve openly it would be 'improper' to have them share living space with straight guys in the same way that it would be 'improper' to have men and women share living space. Of course it seems silly to have separate 'gay units', but I don't know what would be a better alternative. Kind of an awkward situation either way.

edit: On the other hand, surely there are gay guys that don't want other gay guys ogling them, but they'd have to tolerate it whether they're separate from straight guys or not. And anyway, is there really any good reason to be so paranoid that someone you live with is sexually attracted to you? This kind of issue arguably comes down to the prudishness that is deeply ingrained in our society, and it would be best if we just stopped conditioning these juvenile notions of sexual propriety into our children/peers/whoever. Not that there are many people in the U.S. who are ready to go through with that, but it should still be a goal of ours.

Your first paragraph was pretty on target. The edit not so much. Flagrant sexuality is productive in what way? And would you willingly (as a straight guy) room with another guy regularly coming onto/ogling you?

Right (even though that's a damn good example of Jesus being a major asshole, which I don't think you can deny he sometimes is/seems to be), but that doesn't mean they're not Christian. It just means they weren't very good at it. Not everyone can be as great at being Christian as you are (and, honestly, why would they want to be when it makes you a discriminating fucking douchebag?), but they're still Christians.

This whole paragraph belongs in another thread, as does the one it addressed.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Haha, I love how under normal circumstances you're fine with getting pretty off-topic if it is self-serving, but once someone poses a challenging point or question, you pull this whole "hey mr. mod why don't you be relevant?!" thing. Kind of cute, I guess, but I'll post it and my follow up edit in the religion thread (if only cuz that thread needs a desperate restart and lift from the mire of retardation it was revived within).

also, not all gay men ogle straight men. actually, i'd wager NONE OF THEM DO. they may find straight men attractive, but i think even gay people (lol see what i did there?) understand what sexual harassment is, not to mention that gay dudes aren't gonna get very far with straight dudes cuz straight men sorta AREN'T FUCKING ATTRACTED TO THEM.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Your first paragraph was pretty on target. The edit not so much. Flagrant sexuality is productive in what way? And would you willingly (as a straight guy) room with another guy regularly coming onto/ogling you?

If they're hitting on you, you can report them for sexual harassment right? Why not just let that take care of the issue?

 

[Dak]

Haha, I love how under normal circumstances you're fine with getting pretty off-topic if it is self-serving, but once someone poses a challenging point or question, you pull this whole "hey mr. mod why don't you be relevant?!" thing. Kind of cute, I guess, but I'll post it and my follow up edit in the religion thread (if only cuz that thread needs a desperate restart and lift from the mire of retardation it was revived within).

That wasn't my point but I can see how it can be taken like that (my bad). I already did a "modless thread move".

@ Your edit: It sounds fine in theory, but I am guessing you don't know that many gay guys (also, the ones the military would attract would probably be of a slightly different ilk than most homosexuals). The open homosexuals found in the military generally get found because they are coming onto straight people. Like the guy in my unit who did it repeatedly.

@Vihris: If it was that simple why not have co-ed everything? I already stated, if they did that, there would be no grounds to deny open homosexuals from serving.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

We don't have co-ed everything because there are FORCED SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS in some such situations, and it was decided, correctly, that this was not such a great set up. However, how many gay dudes raping straight dudes stories can you find? Got some stats? Oh wait, you DON'T, because your point is DUMB.

 

[Dak]

I don't because gays haven't been allowed to serve openly in the military. I am also pretty sure the amount of straight guys willingly sharing rooms/close quarters with gay dudes is immeasurably low, therefore not creating the situations to assist rape.

Creating an environment of forced pairings, and you would see these incidents.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah I would think that rape of straight guys by gay guys is practically nonexistent, whereas rape of women by men is a significant problem. Until this is proven otherwise, I think putting up with a few gay barracksmates is probably the best route to go. There are already gays among you anyway, so what the hell's the difference besides that you will know that a few extra people you're living with are gay besides the ones you could already nonverbally identify as gay?

And again, if they make a move on you then just report them.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Grant, high five.

btw Dakryn, the reason that you posted as the reason you don't have stats is pretty BS and weak, man...gay people don't just exist in the military, and I don't see why it'd be such a jump to use statistics of civilian man-on-man forced sexual encounters to assist your point. Therefore, your point is dumb.

 

[Dak]

Male rape incredibly under-reported

No matter where male rape victims live, it is an incredibly underreported crime for a variety of reasons. Go Ask Alice, a fantastic, informative blog run by the health services division of Columbia University, notes that:

Most research suggests that 10 to 20 percent of all males will be sexually violated at some point in their lives and that one in every ten rape victims is male. Recent studies by the Department of Justice and other governmental agencies found that victimized men accounted for 6% (9,040 men) of completed rapes, 9 % (10,270 men) of attempted rapes, and 11% (17,130 men) of completed and attempted sexual assaults reported. Additionally, studies sponsored by gay and lesbian studies programs at various universities suggest that 12 - 30 percent of gay and bisexual men surveyed had indicated that they engaged in sexual intercourse when they did not want to because they felt coerced to do so. Recent studies show that more than 86% of male survivors are sexually abused by another male.

Experts believe that current male rape statistics vastly under-represent the actual number of men who are raped each year both because crime statistics often do not actually include men as potential victims of rape and because men are less likely to report rape. Research suggests that the rates of under-reporting among men are even higher than those of women.

It is not just the "homosexual issue" that stops men from reporting rape in the US and abroad. As Go Ask Alice points out, gender stereotypes of men as strong and invincible make many men reluctant to report that they have been sexually violated. This fact only makes my admiration of Alex Robert even stronger. It is sad that reporting a crime and bringing attention to injustice is risky to anyone. Yet he is sticking his neck out to make sure that others do not have to go through what happened to him. He is a remarkable young man to stand up to these falsities and stereotypes. We all thank Alex for his courage, and wish him and his family the best.

This is widely known fact.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Still doesn't explain your bizarre point that gay men living in close quarters with straight men would inevitably lead to (obviously unwanted) sexual advances from the homosexual to the male.

 

[Dak]

If you think that is a bizarre point there is no point in going on about this. It's pretty obvious it will happen. Not 100% of the time, but enough to not allow it. Just like rooming men with women wouldn't lead to rape 100% of the time.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I don't think it is very logical to just assume things will happen if you have no actual basis to assume said things will happen, but it's your prerogative to be illogical

 

[Dak]

How do I not have a logical basis for assumption? You disagree, but the points I listed remain and they are logical.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Because you have no logical reason to assume the points you've made. You need to prove that there is a basis to believe that gay men in barracks with straight men would inevitably lead to "ogling" and unwanted sexual advances.

Once again, I don't understand how it's so hard to comprehend that gay men tend not to have interest (that would lead to said "ogling" [this word rules btw], anyway, which is really the only relevant kind of interest to your point, otherwise the "interest" is realistically negligible to any actual occurrence) in straight men insofar as gay men don't tend to openly come on to straight men. Likely, they'd seek companionship with those who share their sexual preference. And, in that scenario, who would it actually bother on a level more than "ew gross two dudes"?

 

[Dak]

Because you have no logical reason to assume the points you've made. You need to prove that there is a basis to believe that gay men in barracks with straight men would inevitably lead to "ogling" and unwanted sexual advances.


Once again, I don't understand how it's so hard to comprehend that gay men tend not to have interest (that would lead to said "ogling" [this word rules btw], anyway, which is really the only relevant kind of interest to your point, otherwise the "interest" is realistically negligible to any actual occurrence) in straight men insofar as gay men don't tend to openly come on to straight men.

Likely, they'd seek companionship with those who share their sexual preference. And, in that scenario, who would it actually bother on a level more than "ew gross two dudes"?

All of the above is merely your opinion, with no facts to back it up. At least I provided the article in previous posts. So at worst we merely have two seperate, factually unbackable opinions. I lean on my first hand experience(although of course that is anecdotal) with gays in the military.
Anecdotal evidence is better than none.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

How is any of that my opinion?