Why separate lockerrooms?

[bluethread]

A possible NFL draft pick came out this week. Some of the media have quickly pointed out that it is silly to presume that sexual preference should have any effect on a locker room environment. If that is the case, why do we have separate male and female locker rooms? Is this just another silly religious practice that has no place in civil society?

[jamesyaqub]

Most people who ask "why not unisex changing rooms" are usually in it for the voyeurism.

I wouldn't want same-sex locker rooms, because I don't want to give ALL THIS (waving my hands over my body) away for free to the Laadies.

And, I'm sure they appreciate it.

Well here at last is a reason that is not "fear based".

[Darias]

I don't see why private stalls and showers and dressing rooms can't be an option here.

I don't really think it should be normal for a bunch of strangers to shower together or get dressed in the same room. How does that make any sense?

[bluethread]

Most people who ask "why not unisex changing rooms" are usually in it for the voyeurism.

I wouldn't want same-sex locker rooms, because I don't want to give ALL THIS (waving my hands over my body) away for free to the Laadies.

And, I'm sure they appreciate it.

Well here at last is a reason that is not "fear based".

I did not state a preference one way or the other. I just posed the question. So, Ooberman is not willing to give a free look to the ladies, but is willing to give one to the gents. Why do you show favoritism to homosexual men over heterosexual women?

[Ooberman]

Most people who ask "why not unisex changing rooms" are usually in it for the voyeurism.

I wouldn't want same-sex locker rooms, because I don't want to give ALL THIS (waving my hands over my body) away for free to the Laadies.

And, I'm sure they appreciate it.

Well here at last is a reason that is not "fear based".

I did not state a preference one way or the other. I just posed the question. So, Ooberman is not willing to give a free look to the ladies, but is willing to give one to the gents. Why do you show favoritism to homosexual men over heterosexual women?

Because I was joking. Why is this a thing for you? What possible point could be made by this OP? Why would I care if someone saw me naked?
The only reason I don't go nude is because I respect other people not wanting to see a middle-aged guy running around naked.

That said, I might do the Naked Bike Ride, here in Philly this Spring.

I've been to uni-sex locker rooms and bathrooms. A platonic friend in high-school used to dress in front of us, boys and girls. The girls all went topless at the beach.

So, as far as I am concerned, it happens in some places, not others. It's a cultural difference that "just is the way it is".

Seriously, what is the larger point trying to be made here?

[Ooberman]

As I read the OP, the answer is "yes, if it were truly a civilized society, we could probably all go naked".

Yet, we are animals - Apes - and some of us can't handle civility, especially if they are raised to believe nudity is shameful and their lustful urges are dirty.

The Puritans in America dealt with it in their way, Muslims in their way, Europe in their way, etc.

The easy answer is, how about we have many locker rooms for all kinds of groups: Some for red haired people, some for those who want to be alone, some who like to surf, some who like art, etc...

Is that what you are thinking, or is it all about sex for you?

[bluethread]

As I read the OP, the answer is "yes, if it were truly a civilized society, we could probably all go naked".

Yet, we are animals - Apes - and some of us can't handle civility, especially if they are raised to believe nudity is shameful and their lustful urges are dirty.

The Puritans in America dealt with it in their way, Muslims in their way, Europe in their way, etc.

The easy answer is, how about we have many locker rooms for all kinds of groups: Some for red haired people, some for those who want to be alone, some who like to surf, some who like art, etc...

Is that what you are thinking, or is it all about sex for you?

Thanks for answering your own post. The reason I asked the question was that no one had presented this option, but had knee jerk reactions like some of those present on this thread. The heterosexual "community" is concerned about the atmosphere in the segregated locker room. However, the homosexual "community" responds by calling that concern silly, all the while seeing segregated locker rooms as not silly. Though your statement was a joke, why is it funny when one is talking about women, but not about men. Would it have been acceptable for someone to joke that they don't want homosexuals in the locker room because they don't want "to give ALL THIS (waving my hands over my body) away for free to the gents" ? Something tells me that such a joke would be seen as homophobic. If that is the case, why isn't your joke heterophobic?

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]


We Americans are among the most prudish people on the planet. We live in fear of sexuality. Sin! Oh dear Lord.... save me from sin.

Get over it I say. None of this matters to the mature adult.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Hollywood carefully markets its movies differently In Europe (Western Europe anyway) as it does in the U.S. The U.S is far more tolerant of screen violence but intolerant of sexual content, whilst the inverse is true of Europe. Maybe that overstate it a little. but the point is the U.S does seem to be more hung up on sex and sexuality.

As for the point about locker rooms. It is cultural I think. We have had a debate in the UK in the past over same sex versus mixed hospital wards.

I notice men's behaviour changes and becomes more adult and more civil and there is less farting when in the company of women. Maybe this is why "the locker Room" is synonymous with childish antics and brutish behaviour.

[Ooberman]

As I read the OP, the answer is "yes, if it were truly a civilized society, we could probably all go naked".

Yet, we are animals - Apes - and some of us can't handle civility, especially if they are raised to believe nudity is shameful and their lustful urges are dirty.

The Puritans in America dealt with it in their way, Muslims in their way, Europe in their way, etc.

The easy answer is, how about we have many locker rooms for all kinds of groups: Some for red haired people, some for those who want to be alone, some who like to surf, some who like art, etc...

Is that what you are thinking, or is it all about sex for you?

Thanks for answering your own post. The reason I asked the question was that no one had presented this option, but had knee jerk reactions like some of those present on this thread. The heterosexual "community" is concerned about the atmosphere in the segregated locker room. However, the homosexual "community" responds by calling that concern silly, all the while seeing segregated locker rooms as not silly. Though your statement was a joke, why is it funny when one is talking about women, but not about men. Would it have been acceptable for someone to joke that they don't want homosexuals in the locker room because they don't want "to give ALL THIS (waving my hands over my body) away for free to the gents" ? Something tells me that such a joke would be seen as homophobic. If that is the case, why isn't your joke heterophobic?

You could joke about that, because if you saw me you'd know there really isn't much the ladies would be clamoring after. It was self-depricating humor.

I wasn't trying to make a deeper point - except to say - "who cares"?

If you don't want gay people looking at you in a locker room announce yourself:

"Gents! Please, I am very uncomfortable with people lusting after my naked body, so please avert your eyes if you are a Gay. Thank you for your attention, now, don't look."

Simple, no?

A woman should be able to do that too, if she were at a beach and needed to change. Or, she could also go somewhere else to change.

One can always take responsibility for themselves.

It simply seems a rather silly discussion because things are the way they are, not because of some God Decree, or that homosexuality is a sin, or whatever other point you might be trying to convey.

[jamesyaqub]

Most people who ask "why not unisex changing rooms" are usually in it for the voyeurism.

I wouldn't want same-sex locker rooms, because I don't want to give ALL THIS (waving my hands over my body) away for free to the Laadies.

And, I'm sure they appreciate it.

Well here at last is a reason that is not "fear based".

I did not state a preference one way or the other. I just posed the question. So, Ooberman is not willing to give a free look to the ladies, but is willing to give one to the gents. Why do you show favoritism to homosexual men over heterosexual women?

Huh?

[Ooberman]

Most people who ask "why not unisex changing rooms" are usually in it for the voyeurism.

I wouldn't want same-sex locker rooms, because I don't want to give ALL THIS (waving my hands over my body) away for free to the Laadies.

And, I'm sure they appreciate it.

Well here at last is a reason that is not "fear based".

I did not state a preference one way or the other. I just posed the question. So, Ooberman is not willing to give a free look to the ladies, but is willing to give one to the gents. Why do you show favoritism to homosexual men over heterosexual women?

Huh?

I think he's trying to make some kind of point about God, the Bible and some anti-gay remark, but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I think it's something like: "Why can't people who don't like gay people keep gays out of the locker rooms, just like heterosexuals keep opposite sexes apart.

I think he is trying to reduce the world into "those who have Biblically approved sexual tastes are allowed, those who don't, aren't."

There is some buried comment in his OP that if women don't like being oogled by people who get randy seeing them naked, then why are gay guys allowed in men's locker rooms, if those guys get randy at seeing men?

then he adds something about religious practices..

He seems fixated on the idea that if we allow (gay) men in Men's rooms - as if they aren't men - then we should simply allow everyone everywhere... but, he might add, thank goodness for religious taboos! Otherwise, women would have to submit to men commanding them to never make a locker room for themselves, if they so see fit... or something...

Honestly, I don't understand his point.


Perhaps he can clarify?


Bluethread, can you - in very simple terms - explain what your issue is?