Vermillion




Why?? Cause you say so??



Now you sound like Gordo, arguing against yourself. It not being said gays can't control themselves... What is being said is that they can't control the fact they are attracted to men. Simple yes or no... Can Gays help who they are attracted to?? Answer the question please.



Again, you act like you haven't lived life yet. What you KNOW changes your perception on reality. I don't think a man is looking at my butt because he thinks I'm sexy, until it comeout that... He is gay. So is there a poll on how many man enjoy taking a shower with the openly secreted homosexual?? Give me those number Vermillion



Exactly.



Exactly. And not just nervouse... but exposed, even violated.



I thought you'd never ask. RAce is the most superficial of all discrimination. It's not just that some one is born Black or Hispanic, the only difference physically goes only skin deep. Now our social environments may shape us , mentally, to have different outlooks on life but chemically in the brain housing group we react the same, no matter the race. So what would one be nervous about showering with a black?? That I could turn them Black.. impossible.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, while physicaaly are male.. are mentally different. Something happened to them, maybe it is nature natural way of population control, maybe some wires got crossed in development, or maybe it's a bizarre choice. Science isn't sure... I tend to think it is one of the options outside of "choice" at least for male homosexuals. At any rate, though there Gender is male, their sexuality is female. I say again, their sexuality is not male, it is not the same as your normal male. In essence they are abnormal, but no more abnormal than a left handed person.

So what is the fear of heterosexuals males. That a homosexual will look at them nude and have lustful thoughts. That they will be physically exposed to the lude thought of a man who enjoys sex with men??

At this point your saying "it already happening cause Gays are already in".. Welll you are correct, but what isn't happening is the feeling of uncomfortability , because no one knows.... which is why I bring up women in the shower being forced to shower with men... Do you yet understand why....

Because you know what you think when it comes to straight men feeling uncomfortable... "So what!! get over it..." Which is cool. But if that logic doesn't go towards women who fear the exact same thing, then don't apply to men.

We don't separate males and females because of gender, we separate them because of sexuality!!! Go to a beach vermillion. Notice how the men walk with no shirts and wow... the women wear Bikini tops.... Why?? Why?? Why??


I have a son, and a daughter... up till my daughter was 5 and my son 3 they shared the same bath tub. AndI'm sure I'm not too different from many parents out there. But now at 7 and 5 they still take separate baths and will continue like for the rest of their life. Do you know why, because this society demands certain observings towards sexuality, not sex, because my son has always been male and my daughter has always been female, but because of the impending sexuality tat will naturally develop in any boy and any girl. That is our reality.

So, don't try to make some fallible argument that we separate men from women due to their body parts.. it is because of sexuality. But you don't want any wall up between same sex sexuality correct, so why don't we just tear them all down... Because I don't know if you knew this yet, but they are all there for the same reason... to make us feel comfortable.

So don't tell me to stop silly comparisons to cover up your own hypocrisy. Or maybe it's your inability to figure out why we keep men and women separate. Either way the question and comparison stands until you come up an argument.


And let me say the biggest difference between race and sexuality... Matter fact Ill let you say it since you said it twice in bold letters.

Vermillion


That's right Vermillion... for all the discrimination the homosexuals are going through They are still in the military... In the good jobs, in the bad jobs... in place of leadership... can you same for the discrimanation against Blacks.



Same should apply to women then, right... why or why not



It IS Homophobia. I already stated this. It is just like Heterophobia. This country is scared of sexuality... come visit You'll understand what I am saying. You can watch people blow each other to smitherines and it's just rated "R" however watch some one pretend to have sex that TV-MA (mature).

So should we tear down the walls on sexuality that permeate through American society??? You bring up what... 13 nations... but how do these society treat sexuality. I've been to korea, the men walk around holding hands we were teasing them about being Gay... oh and prostitution is legal. Australia women seem to throw their sexuality to the wind... hell everyone that came off a float from australia seemed to have sex with one of those girls... doesn't spain have all the nude beaches??

I mean you throw out these countries but look at those countries societies... we'll get there eventually... give it time...




Do you get choose who you tent with?? Is it broadcasted in the mountaineer trip... "hello I'm gay"



DFo you hold the same standard to straight women, dealing with straight men... yes or no






Holy crap!! I said you would say something, up above... and you actually say in this post...

So you are saying that Gay men aren't physically attracted to men, right. And you are saying that if I walkin into the shower of women at the local Bally's gym they should get over it, right. No big deal.
You still have no answer...

Since I have posted authoritative proof that the incidence of male homosexuality in the United States is between three and six percent (higher in this tread), and since it is very well known that this incidence cuts across many significant social distictions such as race and class, the burden of proof should rather be on you to justify the absurd supposition that our combat forces -- rugged, manly souls that they are, in contrast to those limp-wristed real echelon types -- are not homosexual in roughly the same proportion. Football players are a bunch of rugged, manly types as well, and it does seems as if a certain proportion of them are homosexual, you know?

Given that "don't ask, don't tell" is the official policy, we shall hardly be surprised if our combat forces return from Iraq (if only that would ever happen) and very few of them announce themselves to be homosexuals. Frankly, given cultural factors such as widespread disapproval of homosexuality, it would be surprising if many so declared themselves even if we make it so they could do so without punishment. What will change, however, is that they will not have to fear being outed and discharged as a consequence of their pursuing, with consenting partners, the forms of intimate contact they most desire.

What will change, however, is that they will not have to fear being outed and discharged as a consequence of their pursuing, with consenting partners, the forms of intimate contact they most desire.

But they don't fear being "outed" now. They have to out themselves. I may be wrong but predominately every story that comes out is them saying... "hey I'm Gay" and they the get thrown out... "honorably". I will say this I think an investigation into a whether someone is a homosexual is a violation of "DADT" policy currently in place. And that an investigation should be illegal.

Boy this discussion is getting downright windy. So of course I thought I would throw my two cents in.

First of all some one earlier demanded logic. You want logic? How about this:

Homosexuality is either
1) a lifestyle choice OR
2) a natural occurrence

If there is any other possibility I would like to hear it.

If homosexuality is (1) then the military has every right to exclude them if they feel like it. Lifestyle choices are not guaranteed by the constitution EXCEPT for one, that is religion. (Maybe a broad generalization and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) Freedom means that freedom to make choices NOT the freedom from the consequences of those choices.

If homosexuality is (2) a natural occurrence then it must be accommodated just like other naturally occurring sexes are. That means that you would have a male barracks, a female barracks, a gay barracks, and a lesbian barracks.

This is only place where the black/white argument has any validity. Black and white was nature not choice and so a black man had to be treated the same as a white man. However black and white are differences of skin color not gender. Gay and strait would be differences of sexuality and a different sexuality than man is woman therefore gays must be treated like women, that is, a different living area etc.

One thing I have yet to hear mentioned by name (although it has been discussed ad nauseum) is sexual harrassment. Why is it not okay for a woman to feel uncomfortable about a situation but men need to suck it up?



I am not a big fan of polls or statistics anyway but lets take this at face value. According to this 27% of the respondents apparent are not comfortable with lesbians and gays. Do you subject them to sexual harassment to appease the gay/lesbian lobby? Or do you just blow it off "they are just bigots and homophobes so their opinion doesn't matter."

Let see, in previous posts we have heard statics that as many as 6% of the military is gay. Ok. So? 23% are uncomfortable with them? Who do we accommodate? Well lets go back to the nature/choice argument.

If it is nature you need to accommodate the gays but you have to provide them with separate barracks, showers, etc, which, incidentally, appeased a majority of the 23% who have a problem with them in the first place.

If it is choice then who can say it is the right choice? 6% vrs 23%? Choice simply means democracy right? 23% wins. Well wait a minute. Those 23% are all bigots and homophobes, remember? That's right, their choice are not valid according to me. And of course I am never wrong because I am me. Of course I may be a bigot too because I am unable to tolerate this differing belief (i.e. a bigot).

So now lets look at an argument against gays in the military that the pro-gay crowd keeps attacking, that is that allowing openly gay members into the military will degrade our military capabilities.



How many of the 23% who are uncomfortable with gays would reenlist if gays were allowed to openly serve in the military? But, to use John Kerry's infamous blunder, they all would be uneducated bigots so it would cost less to replace them than the highly educated paragons of virtue and enlightenment that are the gays.

Side note here. I am NOT attacking Vermillion in this post. You are simply one of the few to actually back up your argument with sources that can be addressed. So it is actually a complement that I am quoting you

So that is my main argument. Nature vrs Choice. Pick your side and make your argument lets see how it applies to the topic at hand:



(PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT TRYING TO HIJACK THE TOPIC. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO RATIONALIZE ON THE "CAUSE" OF GAYNESS OTHER THAN TO TRY TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS TOPIC

If it isn't apparent I fall on the "choice" side of the argument. My arguments in regards to the above questions are:

1. No. Lifestyle choice is not protected by the constitution.
2. The US is responsible for this controversy. Because we are a free country we allow choice. Any time a choice is available controversy will be there.
3. Yes. Accept that not all battles can be won, but that the battle is not the war. Because I believe that it is a choice I accept the possibility (however slim i believe it to be) that I could be wrong. I am willing to listen to counter arguments as long as they are intelligent and open to the possibility (however slim) that I could be right too.

Just remember that the majority of both sides in this issue are religious and according to many religions God will return to remove the wicked from the righteous. (We now pause while you divide the two sides and place yourself on the appropriate side) If God doesn't exist then natural law means that eventually the most natural (i.e. "best")side will prevail and so in either case it is only a matter of time. The best thing either side can do is remain civil.

Which brings me to another thought. The word "homophobe" This is an illogical word used on this thread mainly by the "not willing to think" crowd. I use that phrase rather than the harsher words of "stupid" or "idiotic" or "bigoted" crowd because . . . well it is less inflammatory to be honest. I do think that some on this and/or other boards deserve the former expression rather than the latter ones because for the most part their responses are well thought out. In this case though, not so much. I have tried to be civil and when the Democratic Party members complained on other boards how they felt it disparaging to be called Democrats I tried to accommodate them. Not because I felt that I was insulting them when I used that term but because THEY felt I was. I am not perfect. I have probably slipped at times but I make the effort because it keeps the discussion more civil.

Because of this I would like to "call out" CruisingRam (heh, not reallys ) and your post #79 where you said



May I suggest a third option?
3) I believe that a change in policy would create a gradual loss of some of the 23% who would not agree with a pro-gays policy that would not be offset by the influx of gays into the military.

This option does not need to worry about whether or not I am pro-gay or not. Simply that I feel that there are enough members of the military who would leave because they couldn't agree with a pro-gay stance, regardless of their reason, to impair military efficiency.

Before you again throw out the rolls of the countries that appear to not have a problem let me say this. Israels military is 100% conscription based. Everyone (with very few exceptions) must serve. This does not mean that they can not choose to stay in the military after their conscription is up, but how many more well trained people would stay if they had a different policy about gays? Who knows. I certainly don't but it makes it more of an apple/oranges comparison (or fuji/yellow delicious if you want to be picky).

The same goes for the UK all though in a different way. The UK's military requirements are much, much smaller than those of the US. This means they can be more picky in who joins the military than the US can. If their policy offends a group of people it doesn't matter as much how big that group is until it become a group of such size that they can not fulfill their military obligations. The US can afford to offend a group that currently only makes up 6% (to use the previous number) rather than offending 23%. If you could prove that the US would more than make up the difference if the policy would change it probably would. Eventually. (And there is no way possible at the moment to prove that).

Now, unless you can prove that my option number 3 is invalid I would ask all of you to refrain from calling anyone on the board a homophobe until/unless they actually said "I have an irrational fear of gays".

Oh and one final remark. The lesbians with the men and gays with the woman wouldn't work either. You would have women falling for the gays and men for the lesbians. The better solution would be to have a male barracks, female barracks, and a homosexual barracks with the gays and lesbians alternating bunks. (and yes I am being facetious. )



This was posted while I was chipping my way through the monolith that is my post.

Let me be blunt. I hate statistics. I really hate statistics when it come to attempting to measure intangibles such as human relations and human opinions. I feel that it is very, very inaccurate when it tries to do so. I feel that any approach to reality the results have is more coincidence than science.

Let me put it this way. People are more likely to lie about their relationships or their actions if they feel strongly about an issue.

Lets say that you were one of the old "Nielsen families" back before automation removed the journal writing responsibilities from the television ratings. Back then you watched Dukes of Hazzard. But you feel kind of silly about watching it. However Masterpiece theater was on at the same time. Wouldn't you feel tempted to put Masterpiece theater instead?

So that leaves it open for the "in the closet" gay to throw the results off. Well that means the number of actual gays in society and in the military could be higher right? Possibly, but not necessarily. I say this because there are going to be a number of pro gay people who know this and consciously try to adjust for this by claiming to be gay when they are not. Now in a perfect world this would offset. But what if their are more of these people than the closet gays? Or maybe there are less. That is why they say that there is a margin of error right? The problem is, when dealing with humans you need to have a survey population size of half of the country and even then you would need to say something along the lines of 50% of the population is gay, +/- 49%.

Statistics is nothing more than an educated guess and we have seen enough educated fools to know that education counts for nothing in some circles.

Well, using your statistical inferences doesn't seem 100% accurate. I'd imagine that regardless of % of the US population that are gay, that you absolutely cannot infer that this correlates to military service and the numer of gays serving, even using 1/2 (or 1/10) that number. It's like saying hispanics make up 20% of the population, so there should be no less than 10% of all plumbers that are hispanic... not even considering cultural or values based statements that would preclude homosexuals from being service members.

Firstly, I'd imagine that reprisal isn't such an issue for many homosexuals, as they're being kicked out all the time. I bet many enlist regardless of consequence, and most importantly whole heartedly believe that if this was feasible and/or easily accomplished, some gay rights activist would've done it already... then come out of the closet to prove a point. Most US Marines or Army Infantry troops are serving only 6-8 year hitches, which would mean that if there are that many thousands of homosexuals in these roles, there HAS to be someone that's nearing the end of their military career that could come 'out'. Heck- someone already out could come forward, don't you think? Using the same statistical inferences that you've made, you could definitely infer that there would be someone leaving the service that HAD served in these capacities without incident, right?

Vladimir and Hobbes- finally- how would you explain that if the homosexual population of the US military is in the 10's of thousands, how come some homosexual in these roles hasn't come forward? I'm talking combat arms troop who's spent time in forward areas... as I've asserted this whole thread? I can tell you in my opinion why, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything. What I will assert is that the statistics you both assert in this thread helps to prove the notion that someone SHOULD'VE come forward already saying "I'm Out of the Military and Out of the Closet"... " I did it", etc. This has not happened yet.

AHA!!! I was waiting for someone else to bring this up! I think this is really the issue, at least as it is perceived by those in the military making such decisions. As I have continually stated in this thread, I don't the top brass is really worried one whit about whether or not certain troops might be 'uncomfortable'. Tell me one other area where this is a concern of theirs. In fact, they go out of their way during training to make troops uncomfortable, to break down preconceptions, and to train people to adapt and overcome. But, recruitment...that is another issue completely. They have trouble recruiting enough people as it is. They can control the acts and even the thoughts of those under their control...but not of recruits. I think this is really the issue keeping the military from formally adopting a pro-gay stance. Am I right? What does everyone else here think?



Uh-oh...someone's making too much sense here. Again, I think this hits the nail on the head, repeatedly, and with a very large sledge hammer.

As for the homophobia angle, I think Droop224 has done an excellent and eloquent job of admitting that it is indeed homphobia without displaying any of the negative connotations that are probably associated with the term. Phobia is an irrational fear of something, and I do think many of the perceptions and attitudes people have against gays qualify as irrational. That doesn't detract from its effects, as I interpret his argument as being (correct me if I'm wrong on this, droop). An analogy might be forcing those recruits with fear of heights to become paratroopers, to follow his thoughts (again, correct me if this is wrong). To carry this over to Syfir's argument here, I don't think the army would be so concerned with forcing those with fear of heights to become paratroopers as it would be scared of the impact on recruitment if it knew a great deal of people had that fear and it became known that the military forced people to jump.




94% of all people feel that way. (Sorry, couldn't resist. ).

I would add as an aside that the social sciences community does indeed recognize the flaws of using statistics in such areas, and has attempted to incorporate case studies and interpretations from such to be a recognized method of studying such subjects. Normal scientific principles such as cause and effect are almost completely useless in the study of human relations and opinions...there are simply far too many external factors to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions.



Aevans, given current military policy, and also the liklihood of fear of being outcast from the military community in general, I don't think we can have an answer to your question. There are all kinds of reasons why gays might not out themselves. However, our arguments are valid even if there are just a few gays in the military, in that they would appear to be functioning perfectly normally and without causing any consternation at all with their fellow soldiers, as evidenced by the fact that no one had reported them yet. the chances of there being NO gays currently serving seems extremely far fetched, given the statistics of the situation, wouldn't you agree? Just to throw a bone in that direction...I had no idea that there had been that number of people.


Agreed...somewhat. I would argue that your hispanic argument should indeed be a valid thesis...if 20% of the population were plumbers, then indeed there should be at least 10% of the hispanic population were plumbers. Even 10% would be a significant outlier, worthy of examination. To dispute that, one would have to argue the culture or values of Hispanics would preclude them from wanting to be plumbers. Ditto for gays in the military. I granted that this might be the case by reducing the percentage in half (admittedly a SWAG, but without the science part ). However, to argue against the statistics of the situation would require some evidence or logic indicating that gays would have significant factors precluding them from having the qualities that would cause people to enlist (patriotism, desire to serve, etc. etc), as the sheer size of the military would require an almost universal trait amongst gays precluding them from desiring to join the military. Do you have such evidence? I would think the onus would be from those wishing to contradict the default assumption that the percentage would be similar to the general population, wouldn't you?

Why? Do we have special gay and lesbian locker rooms in colleges and universities? Special gay and lesbian dormitories? Special gay and lesbian restrooms in our workplaces? Why should matters be any worse, or require anything different, among the military?

The military, of course, does not exclude homosexuals from military service. It only says, "you must not do this while you are a service member, and if you do, we will out you and throw you out of the service." But I do not accept that it is within the government's right to restrict the private behavior of people in the military based on "lifestyle" choice. There should be a rational basis for anything of that kind. How if, "You can serve, but only if you do not: (1) smoke, (2) own a handgun or (3) drink alcohol?"

As a matter of fact, also, my limited understanding is that the latest evidence suggests that homosexuality is in large degree determined genetically.



It is evident that you are not expert in questions of statistics. As someone who is, I can assure you that the issue of reporting bias is amply considered by the people who develop these kinds estimates. I know that it was considered in this case because, as mentioned in the source I quoted, it is a major issue that affects the certainty of estimates of incidence of homosexuality. 3-6% is a wide range, and it already reflects the uncertainties to which you refer as well as other uncertainties. Since this estimate does represent the consensus view of modern science on this point, I respectfully suggest that you accept it, notwithstanding your personal aversion to statistics.

Otherwise one would suspect that your aversion to statistics is perhaps related to how this particular statistic bears on your argument.

Some of your arguments made elsewhere overlook that the incidence of homosexuality appears to cut quite strongly across many or even all other important cultural and social distinctions, notably class and ethnicity. That being the case, it is most unlikely that the proportion of homosexuals in any large group of people (group, at least, not selected based on sexual preference) is much different that it is for the population at large.

There is, as well, plenty of anecdotal evidence that there is a decidedly less-than-infinitesimal proportion of military persons that is gay.

I don't know how far you can carry the analogy though. I am not saying that there are no homophobes but that not all people that are not pro-gay are homophobes. To use the analogy of overcoming fear is alright for some things but would you want to say that not approving of drinking liquor is beerophobia or disapproving of plural marriage is polygamyphobia?

To say that all people who disapprove of homosexuality do so out of fear is incorrect. Someone once said that "you can't fear what you pity" Maybe it was me. I can't remember so don't ask for a source. If you truly believe in Christianity (says me the legitimate sayer of what true Christianity is ) you can not hate homosexuals because you are taught to hate the sin and not the sinner. Now some people would say you can't separate the two but what do they know?

Sorry. It's late for me and I am probably making less sense than usual. I just would ask you to consider that to some of us there is not such a thing as homophobia without the negative connotations. Unless you have a dictionary that I haven't seen every entry on the word phobia is related to fear. I do not fear gays. I simply believe that what they are doing is wrong. Many people out there feel that what I believe is wrong. Maybe I should call them fraidy-cats or timid or cowards or mentally ill deviants (as has been done before on this board in the last case). While these terms all carry more or less of a stigma, it is not a stigma I will accept for myself when it comes to my beliefs because I do not believe out of fear.



Let me rephrase this to say what I think you are saying, and if I am wrong please let me know.

You are saying that there would need to be a trait among a significant percentage of the gay population to keep the percentage of gays in the military significantly lower than the general population?

Going on the assumption that this is what you mean, how about the same trait that exists in most of humanity at large. We don't like to go where we are not wanted. Obviously the military doesn't want gays. They discharge any admitted gay person. So I would think they would have to have a trait that most of the general population does NOT have to keep the percentages similar. I would think that they would need to be more patriotic or have more desire to serve or simply more desire to prove a point for the percentage to be similar.

Another thought I didn't bring up previously, but while we are on the "numbers" kick, how many of the 73% of the military that is apparently okay with gays around were telling the truth? As it seems to be politically incorrect to be anti-gay anymore how many of the military felt they had to say yes or be branded a homophobe by the pollster? I mean look what happened here!

On the other hand, how many of the 27% said they wouldn't be comfortable because they felt that is what the pollster wanted to hear?

Don't underestimate the "peer pressure" of a stranger. Most humans unconsciously want to please the other person so many times people will give the answer they think the asker wants to hear. That is another reason why I don't think pollsters and their fancy statistics mean much.




Why shouldn't there be separate locker rooms and dormitories in schools if homosexuality is a natural occurrence? Using the argument that "we don't do it in schools so why do it in the military" doesn't seem to be a valid argument to me. If we wanted our military to be like our schools we would probably be a province of Cuba by now. (Not impressed with our schools)

Pittsburg Post-gazette

If it is so bad in schools do you think people just suddenly become okay when they graduate? It isn't right regardless of the nature/choice issue. But don't you think this might be a reason for different barracks/etc?

I would argue that if you are openly gay then you shouldn't be fraternizing with your own sex in areas where it could cause a problem. The saying "avoid the appearance of wrongdoing" is the best way to avoid problems.

Also no one has yet addressed my sexual harassment concern. If it is wrong for a company to allow a situation to occur where a person, man or woman, is uncomfortable because of sexual concerns then why is it okay to allow the gay community to do this? 27% of the military is apparently uncomfortable with openly gay/lesbian people. Is it okay to allow sexual harassment when you can call the victim a homophobe? In this case it doesn't have to be anything the person does or doesn't do for it to be harassment. This applies to schools as well as the military although I wouldn't include the dormitories as they are usually not group rooms but rooms with single or few occupants. (1-4 being the norm that I have seen) If you are uncomfortable there you can change rooms if needed.



A lot of things are allowed by civilians aren't allowed by the military for legitimate reasons and visa versa. Military life is different from civilian life or we wouldn't need a military. Why not allow this if it is a valid reason? The military doesn't allow a lot of "lifestyle" choices that can affect them. You like stats? Fine? We obviously aren't going to agree on that, but using the numbers provided tell me how 10% trumps 27%?

A valid point, and I agree that not all those against gays in the military are homophobic. However, it seems that their arguments still center on the concerns of others who are (the 'he looked at my butt' argument ). I don't think you can come up with a 'rationale' behind why someone looking at your butt causes you to become combat ineffective...it is, as droop admitted, a perceptual issue, which is certainly valid but not necessarily rational.




Yep, that's what I meant, and yes, that would be a valid trait of that nature. Two questions then arise. First, is this a significant enough factor to conclude that this would essentially be a universal trait? Given that gays face this issue constantly in everyday life, I would argue that it is a significant factor, but not enough to conclude that there are no gays in the military. Second, given that gays would know they're not wanted there, wouldn't that indicate that those who were there were highly aware of that fact, and would therefore hide their sexual preference?



I agree. This is probably why all of the stories I hear about gays who were in the military indicate that their service itself was exemplary. Only those who REALLY wanted to join the military would do so, so they would probably be a much more highly motivated group than the average soldier. Which again begs the question--why should we exclude this group? Is it really in our interest to exclude those who, evidence indicates, are highly motivated and exemplary performers? Again, the reasoning against this seems to go back to homophobia, and I suspect, as you suggested, moreso among concern about recruits than concern for functionality of existing soldiers.

Side note: Hey...wasn't I agreeing with most of your previous post?

Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing against there being gays in the military but simply that it could logically be at a higher or lower rate that the national average. Who knows.

I also am not arguing that gays should not be allowed in the military, simply that they have to take into account that there are going to need to be adjustments made if they want to do it openly. That is where my Sexual Harassment concerns come in. Is it wrong for those who are not comfortable with gays to be forced to live with them? Why is it okay to force the straight men and woman who have their own beliefs to adjust to gays and not visa versa?

While I think you are making a decent point overall, droop, I think you are wrong about this. I think race is an apt comparison - here's why. You have been saying that perception is important, right? Of course, I agree. But the racial perceptions you bring up - 'am I going to turn black?' - are in the context of today's society. Imagine, for a moment, how different perceptions were about race when the military was first becoming integrated. How did many whites perceive blacks? What were their fears then? Well let's see. People thought blacks were: more prone to violence; were oversexed; were less capable of the discipline needed in the military. And of course there were many more erroneous perceptions. Is it really a stretch to imagine there were white guys who would have been extremely intimidated to shower and bunk with a black man, given their (mis)perceptions of what "being black" meant? "Is he going to beat me up?" Not to mention the many whites at the time who would have the perception that blacks using the same bathrooms, showers, and bunks would "sully" those places, make them unclean in a profound way.

So when it comes to "fear," I am sure there were many white men with fears about cohabiting with black men - back in the day. But the military basically said, this fear is irrational. You WILL cohabit with these men, you will not complain, you will not treat them differently. And eventually people got over it.

Feeling uncomfortable about being "checked out" by a gay man in the shower is also a perception. Whether or not someone finds you attractive, you control whether or not that makes you uncomfortable. It's conceivable that a white guy today might still be a racist, might still "fear" that the black guy in the shower may lose control and attack him. He either deals with it or gets out of the situation - leaves the army, what have you. The point is, the rules prohibit the actions that would take place if the fears were to be realized. If the black guy were to actually attack the white guy, rules would deal with that. Likewise if the gay guy acted on his attraction, the rules would deal with that as well.

I also posit that feeling uncomfortable about unwanted sexual attraction is different with women than with men. Namely, women have much more basis for their fears. In general they are going to be afraid of a power differential. The fear is that IF this guy giving me the creeps decides to act, I may not be able to stop him. In most cases, this power differential will not exist between men. To wit, since we all have established that gay men (and women) are in the military now, perhaps looking at the statistics for rapes perpetrated by members of the military would be wise. What is the ratio of rapes by men of women, to rapes of men by men. I don't know, but I imagine that's a huge ratio.

And further - isn't the fear you described irrational in another way as well? Look, what bothers you (general you here) about showering with a gay man? You're saying it can make you feel "violated." But why? Would you feel violated and uncomfortable if you were showering with women and you thought they might be looking at you with lustful thoughts? Really? If the military were to declare right now that men and women would all bunk and shower together, my guess is that most of the guys would be like "all right!" and that the resistance would come from women who are afraid, not of being appreciated, but are afraid of the power differential.

I don't know how army units are constructed, but I'll just pull some numbers out of my head. What's more valid when it comes to fear: in a unit of 20 people, the four women being afraid about being in the shower with 16 men, or the 19 men being afraid in the shower with the 1 gay dude? Do you see where I'm going with this? What I'm getting at here, is to try and find the why of it making you uncomfortable. Surely knowing a woman finds you attractive does not engender the same fear - even a woman you don't find remotely attractive. So then, why? Why should it bother you?

And, think about all the neuroses people have. What about the guy with the ugly birthmark, the guy with the small penis, the woman with the obviously uneven breasts, all the little imperfections - real or perceived - that can make us nervous about being naked around others. It seems to me that at its base, this is no different; it's just a neurosis that we either must overcome, or else avoid the situation.

I think you are correct that discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual orientation are comparable. But what I was asked is what is the difference between discrimination that was based on race and discrimination based on sexuality.

You named a list of reasons why Whites may fear having Black in the squad bay with them. Honestly, which one of those perceptions were based on what was real. There fear were irrational because they were based on what they heard about Blacks... nothing more.

Now think about what I have been saying. The fear of being the object of a homosexual's attraction is not irrational. Because the only thing that makes a man truly Gay is that the man is attracted to men, else he's not a homosexual.
When blacks came to white squad bay they saw "whoa I didn't turn Black" "Wow, Blacks aren't all that overpowering.." "Wow they are more blessed then us... " But at the end of the day perceptions based on myth are much easier dispeled than perception based on truth.

Truth 1: Homosexuals are attracted to men. And you know what, there is no "Gaydar". I admit a homosexual may be able to spot another homosexual better than me, because they know what they are looking for. But the homosexual is not attracted to justGay men, they find men in general sexually attractive. And of course, as I said before, I'm sure they have their own standards, so it's not like they are looking at every man licking their lips. But if they are attracted to men... that is a truth, not a perception.

So if this debate were, oh homosexuals want to screw all the men in boot camp.. or homosexuals can't be trusted not to rape people in the shower... or homosexuals sexual deviants out to turn the military into some kind of queer force... then I would be strongly against such unbased veiw points.

But the fact that homosexual are sexually attracted to their same gender is not unbased.

By the way feeling uncomfortable about homosexuals checking you out IS NOT a perception. You don't perceive uncomfortability.. you feel it. Now whether you are actually being checked out by the Homosexual... that is perception... but again it is perception based on truth not myth. If i'm a man in the shower naked with a known homosexual, and he looks downhey he could just be eye wandering he could be checking out my package... I know he is a homosexual male... I know homosexual males find males sexually attractive, I know I am a male. Maybe he think i'm ugly , but my body is nice, maybe he thinks my body is fat, but my penis is a nice size. Maybe he thinks my penis is too small, I'm too fat, but face is cute. Or maybe he checks me out and thinks... "I'm not that desparate... yet"Who knows... but we know he is sexually attracted to men.

I don't think perceptions of people are wrong based on what you know. The thing about race is what generalization can you say that applies to all people of a certain race?? Name one.

Because I can confidently say every homosexual male is sexually attracted to men. And it would be a correct statement,would it not??

Which brings us back to "what make the heterosexual male not wanting to be exposed to homosexuals different from a woman not wanting to be exposed to men." Which, to give you credit quarkhead, you actually tried to take on... but I think your arguments are a little misplaced.




Power differential... it sounds good, but it really doesn't hold up to me. Let put it through the grinder.

No doubt a women understands there is a power differential. But where does nudity play a part in this. this fear would arise in women whether their clothes were on or off. Looking at rape statistics wouldn't help you guage whether women feel uncomfortable showering with men because they are stronger. No let think reasonably here.

Scenario.

If we were in a high school Gym class And we took the varsity cheerleading squad, or the women soccer team and placed them in the shower. Now we take a dweeby freshman Think of "Lucas" and we send him in the Locker room with no clothes and a bar of soap to shower.

What Quarkhead do you think is the likely reaction??

A.
The ladies curiously question why the dweeb is in the locker room while continuing to shower.

B.
The ladies get irrate, cover themselves up, possilly scream, possible tart beating the dweeb out of the locker room and report the dweeb to someone of authority.

What do you think Quark?? I'll give you 100/1 odds that answer b would be picke by a great majority if we took a random poll.

So, it seems unreasonable that the women go into shock mode because the dweeb half heir size represented some power differential.

But let's explore this theory further.



Why do you truly believe women fear power differential in a structured environment. If power differential were truly the fear women would not join the military... period. I mean women aren't in combat fields, but they are in plenty support jobs. In the marines women often found themselves in the field doing exercise that lasted months and they were surrounded by men. They have to stand watch with them in the late hours. They may get stuck on a hill at a check point with a group of men. And they aren't afraid of us, they trust us. But they would still feel uncomfortable with a male walking in the shower... even if it wewre 10 of them and just one male. Why??

Think about this quarkhead. It is the crossing of boudaries established from early in our childhoods that deal with sexuality... not "oh I'm gonna get raped by this one man while I got ten other women around me."



It makes people feel uncomfortable because there are sexuality boundaries set upon us from an early age in this society. not to mention.. your glossing over the most important part it is not women, it is men and I'm not gay. I want women to be attracted to me... it makes me feel good. Thinking of men attracted to me makes me feel wierd. I don't want to be attractive to men... but then again I don't want to be unattractive either

but yes it would make many men uncomfortable to be in the shower and a naked women to jus walk in. But more specifically, it will make men uncomfortable for a myriad of reasons.

Does the homosexual winking at me think I'm gay
What about me causes the homosexual think I might reciprocate his intentions?
Do the other guys think I am gay because i have to sleep in the same tent with the homosexual
Does he fantasize about me. ( and then if you think that you have to subsequently think what the homosexual fantasizes about... which is going to put a bunch of graphic pictures in the person head... now he has a picture of the homosexual doing things to him in his head...


I mean I know we all know how convoluted the human mind can become. Suffice it to say I think we should take into consideration the uncomfortability of the man asked to sexually expose himself to a man.

Picked this gem up on another board:

Vermillion:

Nice try, but if we followed your logic, then men and women should share the same quarters and the same showers, and at the same time. Skin color isn't otherwise sexual orientation, since one is mere pigmentation while the other is an attitude or state of mind.
And that’s the difference here, since you must associate skin color with some state of mind, while I simply allow skin color to be just that and otherwise let the state of mind of the sexually oriented speak for itself, and in that sense the former can be mistaken, falsely defamed, etc., while the other, well, speaks for itself.


quarkhead:

Yeah, the men would be "all right" with showering with women, because they consent, and they consent because they wish to be approved and/or desired by those doing the observing. And that too is the difference here, and such explains why my wife lets me shower with her while your gal doesn't.

And your argument is also quite simply absurd, well, those of color [as it were] will have to forgive and indulge me here, since on your premise, none should care if I call the black soul "nigger" since it is up to that person to decide whether my use of that word makes them feel uncomfortable or not [simply substitute the appropriate word in your own line: Whether or not someone finds you [human], you control whether or not that makes you uncomfortable.]. So I presume that you are against all of this "sensitivity training" and the "speech codes", yes?

For further absurdity in your argument, your argument essentially eviscerates all notions of privacy, since why should you object to having all of your life exposed for all the world to see? Do you keep things private because you think that we'll do something harmful to you should we learn that which you seek to keep private? Or is it simply because you think that we'll think that you're a "sissy boy" and a rather perverted soul in need of much help, should we ever come to know that you like being dominated by your gal? According to you, the latter is of no concern, so unless you can fairly claim some risk of externally caused harm by disclosure, then you ought to have no objection to the disclosure. And so if you aren't a terrorist, then you don't mind if Dubya listens in on your calls, yes? Is he otherwise doing any watching that the one in the shower with you isn't? So why object to Dubya listening in? And who says that I don't get to treat my very own body just as I treat my very own mind? Is it only the thoughts in my head and not my literal person that I am allowed to keep private? And I'll tell you what, you can gag me, chain me, shackle me, and cuff me, and then can I take a shower with your gal? The described restraint ought to resolve any concern over notions of power differential, so please, ask your gal for a convenient date, time and place for our showering together. And be sure that you tell her what you just told us, about how she has a neurosis that she need overcome. Oh, and be sure to duck as soon as you say that, as I expect a swift right cross [or a left, if she's sinister] to then be coming your way. Lucky for me and your gal, that won't happen, as she and I both know that this isn't about neurosis, but instead, our very own sense of self. When my wife allows me to shower with her, in her mind, she is sharing herself with me. That isn't the purely physical reality, but that is how she and 99.9999% of the rest of humanity views self in the posited circumstance. And she can indeed share here, since she does have what I don't have and also what I desire. Now apply that to the various male-male and female-female scenarios. Hetero him and hetero me isn’t about sharing me, since he doesn’t want me in that way and he already has what I have. But hetero me and homo him and, well, we can’t say what I just said now can we, and we might as well be talking about me showering with your wife, yes? Lastly here, the joy of showering with the wife is simply and only that she does have a choice in what she decides to expose and thus share with me, and so I am damn glad that she deems me worthy. Such may be neurosis to you, but it is priceless treasure to me.

Lastly, the one concern is simply that we don't want Mr. X having to worry about having to shower and sleep next to Mr. Y, as we'd like him to instead focus on mission. And if you can't or don't appreciate the concern, then please, have the women here explain to you just why it is that so many of them avoid making eye contact with any number of men on a daily basis? Is she afraid of being raped? Or is it simply that the eye to eye might be mistakenly construed as sexual suggestion [indicating her receptiveness, as it were] and she doesn't want to have to bother to deal with that mistaken impression? Now couldn't the same apply to the hetero-homo encounter?

I also don't want the man or woman to risk her or his own life, or to not order me to do something that need be done, and that precisely and only because of some amorous emotion getting in the way. Truly lastly, speaking of neurosis, we already expose too many people to the risk of violent death because we can't accept that it doesn't matter what happens to my dead body and there's little reason that I can see to add to the risk. And so we don't want our friend there thinking about whether your last backward glance was sexual suggestion or not, as that might get him and you killed [and the object here is to make sure that you change your socks whenever we stop and otherwise not do anything stupid like get yourself killed, or so reports Lt. Dan].

Sorry, one more. Please spare me the I'm a homophobe response since, well, how do I put this but to say that in my more hedonistic days me and the one woman spent much time at the beach. Except she desired to get that all over tan, but she wanted to do so at minimal perceived cost to her, and so we went to the one nude beach that is relatively close by. Except the nude beach that is relatively nearby is overwhelmingly populated by male homosexuals. She didn't want to be on the heterosexual fringes, as it were, but in the middle of the gay section, since then she'd not have to worry about, well, it wasn't power differential, you figure it out, but there I was... And sometimes, well, she put on the suit and would go for a run down the beach, and since I didn't feel like running, there I am, and I was propositioned, any number of times, and I found it downright hilarious. The other hilarity was the first time that it happened, when the woman later told me that I ought to feel flattered, and it was hilarious because she said that and I just started laughing, as the thought had never even occurred to me, and now here I am, a stud in waiting to the gay world. They want me! But they can't have me... I will otherwise save for another time and place the recitation of all of those non-verbal communications that were apparently intended to communicate a desire to have some manner of intercourse, but so there is no mistake, when someone keeps giving you that stare and then starts rising to the occasion, as it were, well, I'll stand [no pun intended] by my interpretation of just what the physical was intended to communicate. Sorry, almost forgot, but while I found the whole matter rather hilarious, I also did feel a tad bit more comfortable when I was the one going somewhere for a bit and leaving her there, as there wasn't much threat of Big Gay Al raping her and I was otherwise fairly confident that Big Gay Al would protect her if it ever came to that necessity. So this isn't about homophobia for me, I just don't want someone to die because they were distracted by the matter of just what someone else was trying to communicate to them by way of that last backward glance. And nice for you and me to not be bothered by it all, but some are, and it isn't fair for you and me to make them assume the risk, and never mind for now that his distraction might not only kill him but you and me as well [and then how will we change our socks when we stop?].


Baphomet's Advocate:

Re the gem, please see my immediately above remarks. I may not be all that in the world of females, but I'm apparently a stud in waiting in the male homosexual nude beach frequenting world. And call it my one claim to fame. Lastly, to add to my immediately above remarks, well, after a while there I was thinking that there was nothing wrong with a litle fun, and so I teased some of them, though I'll spare you and the rest the specifics.

Well, I think there is disagreement on that. I think half of those posting here would posit that fear of homosexuals based on that reasoning is in fact irrational. Suppose a gay were attracted to a straight person...so what? Again...does that person then spontaneously combust? No. What happens is ... nothing. If having people attrracted to others who didn't return the affection were really a problem...we would have ceased to function as a society a long long time ago. Because it happens all the time...much much more often than when the attraction is mutual. Yet, somehow we all still manage to function in our daily lives. This would be no different.



Attraction is not such a simply defined thing. If a straight man finds a female attractive, but knows she is repulsed by him, does that not pretty much remove the attraction? It certainly does for me--I have no interest in girls that make it obvious they have no interest in me. I have seen this in action with gays, as well. Was out late one nite with a group, and one of the girls mentioned a bar she knew that was still open that we could go to. Turns out to have been a gay bar. I was mildly approached by someone right after we came in (before I knew what kind of place it was), but he quickly realized it wasn't mutual, and moved on. No one else in the place even looked at me after that. So, I would disagree that gays are going to be doing much checking out of non-gays in the military. Certainly not anything so obvious as to cause any problems with others.

Aren't all emotions pretty much based on perception? Uncomfortablility about something would certainly be perceptual to me...because there are many times that the uncomfortable feeling goes away once the situation is better understood. What happens in those cases--did the situation really change, or just one's perception of it? Generally...just the perception.

And I still claim that the military doesn't care one whit about whether or not any of its troops are 'uncomfortable', anyway. They couldn't possibly do so and still function.



Men, yes. Fellow soldiers....not so concrete. And, even if he were, I still think it fails the 'so what?' test. The military is not in the habit of worrying excessively about interpersonal issues amongst its troops, is it? There are lots of people in the military who might make other people uncomfortable. Heck..wouldn't most drill sargeants qualify for that? So...should we kick out all the drill sargeants too?



This does seem to be the gist of your argument, and I still say the military doesn't really care about any one's uncomfortability. They do things on purpose to make their troops uncomfortable all the time. Heck..isn't going into combat a bit 'uncomfortable'? Of course it is...which is precisely why the military both doesn't really care, and also goes to great lengths to train its soldiers to function in such environments. So, I say the military doesn't care whether or not being around gays makes any other soldiers uncomfortable, and further would certainly refuse to allow such discomfort to affect performance. Do you really think 'He looked at my tush' would be accepted as an excuse for not performing one's duty? It has been argued here that the nature of the work is what makes this an issue. I state the opposite...it is precisely the nature of the work that makes this the least likely place for it to be an issue. In a 'normal' workplace, far more tolerance is given for interpersonal relationship issues. The military doesn't do so, and that philosophy would preclude it from becoming an issue. Straight people wouldn't be allowed to have their feelings of discomfort affect their duties...and gay people wouldn't be allowed to go around blatantly creating distractions.

Also....women are also in the military now, and would be perhaps even more disposed to look at said tush. Why hasn't that become a big issue? I propose that it hasn't...because it's not. The same would be the case for gays, were irrational feelings removed.

Over here, droop224.

A homosexual man is sexually attracted to men. Point taken. But a homosexual man does have a choice as to which men he can have sex with. And to make it even more specific, does a homosexual man want to have sex with you?

I think we've reached the intersection of Machismo and Irrationality where we're certain that a gay man will take one look a straight man and use his magic powers to seduce us into the gay life. Personally, I've always thought I had some control over who I went to bed with.

Every day a straight man walks down the street or thru a shopping mall or be-bops around the office he probably passes at least one woman that makes him think, "Damn, she's fine." But its dogs in heat that do it in the street. Most guys are able to curb their lusts to the point of not jumping the bones of every red hot mama we see. We can "lust in our hearts" but our elevated brain functions enable us to gaze upon a sexy woman without losing control and clubbing her over the head to ravish her off behind the bushes.

So why can't gay men control their lip-smacking lusts? I believe they can and do. Just like everybody else.

Gay soldiers don't lurk in showers hoping to catch a glimpse of some guy's junk, but even if they do, so what? Looks are still free. It's the touches that give you grief.

I'm sure every poster in this testosterone filled thread has six-pack abs and buns of steel. Without a doubt every summer the males of get hasseled by annoyed cops responding to 911 calls of housewives passing out from the glorious sight of us pushing our lawn mowers across the grass shirtless and bare-chested as beads of sweat roll off our muscular brows and trickle slowly down our glistened, ripped stomachs and taut thighs.

Naaaah....probably not.

Homosexuals and lesbians have the same sex drives as anyone else and like anyone else some of them are very reckless and indiscriminate in their behavior. But I tend to believe a gay man can be in the shower with straight men and not experience any signs of arousal. In fact, it's probably more likely a straight guy would be more likely to embarass himself in a shower full of women, don't you think?



I never knew showers were such pits of hot sex. I've been married too long.

What is it about straight men that they have this irrational fear that somewhere there's a gay guy making goo-goo eyes at them? Are homosexuals like vampires in the ability to "turn" straight men gay with just a look?

With all the cameras watching us every minute of the day even when we think nobody's looking, I'm not going to lose my mind over the possiblity---however slight---that some guy is checking me out at the shower in the gym. Now if he offers to get that spot I missed that's another story. So far though, no worries. Guess I'm just not a gay man's fantasy.

And I daresay, most of the dudes uneasy at the thought of being scoped out in the shower have nothing to fear. If a woman was looking in from behind a two-way mirror she probably wouldn't be seeing a lot of likely Chippendale dancers. Why is a gay man going to be any less fussy about who he goes after?

You don't even come close to understanding droop's argument nighttimer. He is trying to take the perspective, not of the lustful gay man dry humping his fellow heterosexual soldiers, but of the straight man. How would you feel if you were naked/nude in a shower and you knew a gay man was in there? Would this affect your psyche? Would you turn and face him giving him full view of your genitalia? Or would you give him the backside and let him view the "entry point?" Or maybe you give him the hip, so as not to expose too much of yourself. Do you make eye contact? Do you engage in conversation? I submit to you that there are many in the service who would not want to shower with a homosexual man. Human beings are inhibited about their sexuality. That's why there are dividers between the urinals in public restrooms.
Showers are hot beds for homosexuals. You may disagree and if so make your argument, but before you do explain why men go to strip clubs. Is it for the exorbitant cover charges and $7 beers? Or maybe it's the naked women. Why do gay men go to health clubs and hang out in the showers? The naked men.

While in the Marines, I used to hear stories from females about how uncomfortable they felt whenever they would go into the chow hall and every head would turn and stare at them. There was a consensus among the women that they disliked that attention. So yes, nighttimer, goo-goo eyes do make people feel uncomfortable.

Gay men are like most everyone else, they are not going to ask you if they can "get that spot" for you. They are going to ask you about the sports game last night, or your workout. They will strike up a conversation with you just like you would with some woman, except this time you are wearing the proverbial lipstick. What do you do if a man in the shower asks you if you enjoyed the Super Bowl. What if he rolls into, so where you from? Tries to find out your workout schedule. Do you come to the club in the day, or at night? How do you respond to this? How would it make you feel to know you were being hit on in the shower, in the nude.... well at this point you would probably feel more like naked.

In the immortal words of the 40-year old virgin, "Life is not about butthole pleasures."

Just out of curiosity before I jump into this debate and get called all kinds of names because of my position on this, can you answer me a question?

If I'm not comfortable taking a shower in front of an openly gay man and that makes me a homophobe, what am I if I feel as uncomfortable taking a shower in front of a woman that is not my wife? Doesn't that logic make me a heterophobe too?

This issue is hard to debate because some here don't simply state their disagreements. They make blanket statements of fact as if they are right and could never be wrong. And this statement is a small example of this type of rhetoric.

So, answer the question Hobbes - I'm not comfortable showering with or sleeping in the same quarters with women. Am I a heterophobe? Please make me a heterophobe because I believe that's the only name I haven't been called regarding this subject and looking forward to being called different names is just the incentive I need to jump into this debate*.

* = this subject is usually more along the lines of "you are wrong, you can't be right, and that makes you a such and such" as opposed to "I disagree".

It wouldn't bother me a bit. Maybe that is why I don't understand the argument. As NT says, its not like the guy is going to jump someone's bones right then and there. In fact, as I have stated, I don't even think you'd get any lurid glances. You could probably recognize the gay person as the one who is most often NOT looking at any of the other men.

And I am still waiting for someone to address just exactly when the military became overly concerned about causing discomfort amongst some in its ranks. Without that, the whole argument about whether or not having gays in the military causes discomfort is completely irrelevant. Having not received an answer, I am going to consider the point granted, and declare all discomfort arguments irrelevant. Given that those are the only arguments against, I am going to consider the entire argument conceded.

(there, that ought to generate a response!)



Classic case in point. Again...are drill sargeant's going to be instructed 'He made goo-goo eyes at me' is hereby an accepted excuse for lack of performance? HA! Hardly. THE MILITARY DOESN'T CARE IF SOME OF ITS SOLDIERS FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE. IT CAN'T. Did these same women still manage to perform their duties? I suspect so, else they wouldn't still have been there. So, unless you have more than that...the point is completely irrelevant (see above).

That argument will fall on deaf ears because most of the people saying what's good or bad for the military are people that have never served and could have no clue. They think that politicians acting like politicians de-moralize our troops when the fact is, cold food, cold showers, and being treated like garbage by some idiot who outranks you only because he's been in longer is what really de-moralizes you.

When I was in the Marines, I went on 2 med cruises. First on the USS Iwo Jima and the second on the USS Inchon. I was serving in HML-167 at New River Air Station in Jacksonville, North Carolina (temporarily transferred to the light and heavy helicopter squadrons before deployment).

Being out at sea (back then anyhow) was not particulary easy. You usually worked 12 hours a day 7 days a week because there was nothing else you had to do or somewhere to be. You got treated like crap by your superiors and put up with an environment not unlike jail most of the time.

Our sleeping quarters were bunkbeds stacked I think a couple high (maybe 3 - I don't remember) and butted right next to each other. We called each other "bunkmates" and were trained to watch our "bunkmate's" back at all times. We literally slept inches from each other.

One of the few things we didn't have to