CJ Morgan,
Homophobic? How so?
Do you think homosexuals propositioning adolescent boys in public toilets should be sanctioned by law?
Do you think men should be allowed to go into women's shower rooms and watch them shower?
Do you think the anus is the sexual equivalent of the vagina?
Maybe you missed biology lessons, so I'll give it to you straight:
The natural order:
Vagina - penis in, baby out
Anus - faeces out

Absolutely right there CJ!
What an interesting subject you have here Antiseptic. Nice to see you having a go at men for a refreshing change - albeit gay men!

Woulfe - <"This thread's too funny. Possibly, but I wish I could get rid of this vision of Antiseptic and co showering together in their jocks, backs resolutely to the wall, furtively eyeing everyone else in the place for signs of ho-mo-sexuality." Rofl!

For goodness sakes, the ignorance of the homophobes rallying together on this thread is astounding.
There have always been gay men playing sports all along boys.
How is it your 'gaydars' haven't spotted them before now?

Could it be that most of these athletes are just like you are, except that they prefer other gay men as sexual partners?

Here's the thing boys, gay men will usually only come on to other gay men.
All men and women 'LOOK' at each other if they are nude- it is simply human curiosity.

Go change in a toilet if you are worried that your manly beauty will attract all gay men in the vicinity.
My guess is that you won't have a problem with that.....

suzieonline writes what she wishes

'Here's the thing boys, gay men will usually only come on to other gay men. '

Tell that to the homosexual clergy who assaulted young boys.

Proxy: Thanks for doing your best to articulate the source of discomfort; sorry though but you give me the giggles. It brought to mind something a neighbour said about 20 years ago, "If God meant for me to have an operation he'd have given me a zipper."

Following your premise, the mouth is for food in. So strike kissing; head jobs and the like off your list of allowable human sexual behaviour.

Not all gay blokes practice anal sex ( see man2man alliance, for example) because some gay men consider it feminizing and demeaning. There is a variety of ways that men-men have sex; anal sex is just one way that they might share sexual affection.

Anyway, having individual stalls built is a fair suggestion. Do you think it might herald a revolution in the way that footy players relate to each other?

Btw: historically some warriors bonded by loving it up amongst themselves. There are plenty of fellows today who are gay who don't conform to any stereotype. As CJ points out, it's best if blokes who share facilities assume that a proportion of those present are gay because it's almost a certainty that some will be.

Btw: The gateway comment was specifically addressed to Antiseptic who had coined the phrase on another thread, but I don't think he was talking about female receptivity. He was arguing that the desired female holds all the power; while the pursuing male is at a disadvantage. If that were true, then it would hold true in any human encounter where one is desired by the other. Therefore, the case would logically follow that the desired male (the ones who are scared about being desired by another man) holds more power than the one who is wanting to get close.

Well, we seem to be making some progress. The thinking posters are able to grasp the essential point here, which I articulated early on. The usual dimwits are stuck in their usual "I hate antiseptic so he must be a poof or something, btw he's got a small dick you know" mode. Do try to grow up.

The point was comparing two analogous situations and looking at the different ways we, as a society, respond to them. The two situations were the presence of a person of opposite gender in a changeroom and the presence of someone of opposite sexual orientation. The suggestion of separate cubicles, while it may address the particular concen expressed by Akermanis, doesn't address the response that Akermanis was subjected to. He was vilified, denigrated, attacked personally in the most vile way for merely suggesting his discomfort, yet much of the justification for the gay lobby's claims rests on the discomfort felt by gay people in particular situations.

One of the grounds for making a claim of sexual harassment is that the harasser was behaving in a way that made the claimant "uncomfortable". The NSW Govt offer the following:
"In terms of anti-discrimination law, harassment is any form of behaviour that:

* you do not want;
* offends, humiliates or intimidates you; and
* targets you because of your sex, pregnancy, race, age, marital or domestic status, homosexuality, disability, transgender (transsexual) status or carers’ responsibilities."

The HREOC offers this:"Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour which makes a person feel offended or humiliated and that reaction could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances."

Why then, was Akermanis's further harassment by the media acceptable? If he'd been a gay player complaining about not being welcome in the change rooms would he have been treated the same way? What if he was complaining about a transgendered person rather than a gay one?

[cont]

Mt point, of course, at the risk of being labelled "heavy-handed", is that we, as a society are implementing a socially-engineered double standard. We are saying that a straight man has no right whatever to express his disconfort on the grounds that if he does so someone else may feel discomfort. IOW, we have set up a situation in which a minority may wilfully oppress a majority, which is grossly undemocrtatic in what is purported to be a democratic nation.

This may have come about with the best of intent, but it illustrates nicely the dangers of allowing powerful minority lobby groups with agendas that may or may not be congruent with their "constituents" to drive Govt policy-making. We even have feminist groups who try to pretend that women, who comprise over 50% of the populace are a "minority group", showing how powerful such a claim is felt to be.

Is this reasonable, or should we be thinking first about what is best for the majority and only then accommodating the expressed desires of minorities?