How wrong was I that by suggesting that private cubicles would be the end of this ridiculous drama!

It was not just about being naked in front of others, now it's about how homosexual players don't fit into that 'normal' macho football cult and it was even suggested that homosexual players should have their own team.

As soon as they come out, they are no longer trusted by the 'normal' football player?
Wow, apartheid all over again! Sexual orientation is the new race behind the scenes of the football cult.

Sounds to me that football, like some religions, will remain in the dark ages for some time yet. Even the armed forces have moved on for most part.

About 10% of the male population are homosexual, and as pelican said, cultures can and do change. Perhaps some classes- not only to be edified about how to treat women, but how to treat homosexuals, too?

Celivia, after reading this entire thread it's obvious there was a wider anti-homosexual agenda right from the beginning. The language within the posts clearly shows that.

Homophobic is indeed the correct and accurate word to describe some of the people here.

If someone commits a crime, they are a "criminal". It's not name calling to call that person a criminal, whether or not they admit to the crime they committed.

If someone dislikes people because they are aboriginal, then that person is a racist. It's not name calling to call that person a racist, whether or not they admit to the racism.

If someone regularly assaults people because they are smaller and physically weaker, then that person is a bully. It's not name calling to call that person a bully, whether or not they admit to being a bully.

AND - - - - if someone is uncomfortable with homosexual football players because of their sexual orientation, then that person is homophobic. It's not name calling to describe that person as homophobic, whether or not the person admits to being homophobic.

That was never in doubt for a moment, benq, right from the start.

>>...it's obvious there was a wider anti-homosexual agenda right from the beginning.<<

But what is really fascinating is the "rights" that have been claimed along the way. There's a lot of them. Some are quite extraordinary.

>>...his right to shower free of the sense that he may be being "perved on"<<

"Free of the sense..." is a "right"? Why must you be responsible for the way others "sense" things?

>>Doesn't his right to "feel safe" from someone else's possible titillation outweigh someone else's right to use the facility?<<

There go summer afternoons on the beach, guys. The girls in bikinis have a "right to feel safe from your possible titillation", apparently.

>>...players have a right to privacy <<

Fair enough. Although they probably compromise that right a touch by taking off their clothes in a crowded dressing room.

>>...does the "right" of a gay man to share a shower block with straight men trump the "right" of those straight men to feel comfortable in such a setting?<<

There's the clincher. The "right" to feel comfortable.

I feel uncomfortable when I have to sit next to a guy with foul body odour on the train. Can I complain to State Rail that my rights are being violated.?

Even when qualified a little, it's questionable.

>>...the right of someone to feel safe and comfortable in a vulnerable position.<<

What about the "right" not to put yourself in a vulnerable position?

Oh, sorry, that's being facetious.

Uh-oh. Here comes a Human Right.

>> the absolutely valid human right of a person to privacy from leering from perverted people of the same sex...<<

I've checked with the UN. They haven't heard of this one either.

Here's another.

>>the human right to dignity and privacy<<

"Dignity" in a football changeroom? That's a good one.

>>...a roomful of men who have every right to feel comfortable and relaxed with each other's presence in a vulnerable situation<<

It's that "right to feel comfortable" again.

I think that's enough "rights" for one day.

A women's shower room is a desexualised zone.
If men, who are naturally sexually attracted to women, were allowed into a women's shower room it would become a sexualised zone.
Most normal women would feel uncomfortable knowing that men would be looking at them in a sexual, albeit natural, way.

A men's shower room is a desexualised zone.
If open homosexuals, who are unnaturally sexually attracted to men, were allowed into a men's shower room it would become a sexualised zone.
Most normal men would feel uncomfortable knowing that homosexuals would be looking at them in an unnatural, sexual way.

Women have a right to a desexualised shower room.
Men should also have a right to a desexualised shower room.
Anything else is just homo-apologic yada yada.

Private cubicles are not the answer.
These would only lead to homosexuals engaging in their unnatural activities in the privacy of cubicles.
This is amply demonstrated by the homosexual propensity to go cruising in public toilets and other "beats", as they like to call them.

It's interesting to note that when Democrat Mayor Jim Naugle of Fort Lauderdale in Florida proposed the installation of "robotic" public toilets as a response to local complaints about persistent homosexual cruising, homosexual activists engaged in rampant protests and discrimination suits.
The Dutch had a different response. They now have specified areas of parks where homosexual men can go to engage in homosex.
The parks carry warning signs to advise the unwary.

That is the sort of "progress" we can expect in Australia unless enough people protest the relentless encroachment of homosexuals upon public and private space.

Proxy get over it. Would you rather have homosexual's try to be "normal" which to easily leads to misery to all involved?

If their sexual orientation is not towards people of the other gender and social/legal pressures make that the only real choice they have other than celibacy (and a lack of all the other stuff that comes from partner type relationships) their lives, the lives of those they marry and the lives of any children which result may all be harmed.

I can see why people would be bothered sharing shower/change facilities with known homosexuals (just as I see why many would be bothered having to share those facilities with members of the opposite sex).

The only way to avoid the issue is use a private cubicle and try not to look under the door to see what others might be doing in their cubicle. Easier just to accept that it does not really matter.

Even if you outlaw homosexuality and try and force everyone to be straight it won't really work, the inner orientation will still be the same and possibly the desperation for a perve will be far stronger.

It would be a far better world if we got over our body hang up's, our concern over who might be looking or what they might be doing and just got on with life.

R0bert

Good grief Proxy.

I have used many women's private cubicles at pools, gyms and educational institutions and so far I have not heard anyone having sex in them.

The only time I have ever heard about a footballer having sex in a private toilet was a with some other footballer's wife.

Gee whiz...