Strewth, there are some delicate flowers out there in the "silence is best" or " I'm OK with it if I don't know" brigade!

I would agree with H if it was a perfect world...."it's no biggy" but in truth the world isn't perfect and there are homophobes out there who pretend to be reasonable while harbouring all manners of dark fears. Severin is correct in reality.

To me, the comments of the footy boy are in keeping with his limited ability to think issues through.

I see no reason why gay people including adolescents shouldn't have sporting heroes (gay) they can identify with if they choose.

Personally, I find this "man shower culture" dynamic some what symbolic (primal) of homosexual anyway.

Additionally the underlying assumption to some of the comments implies that homosexuals are uncontrollable in their lust actions.
This is sheer nonsense.

"Being hit on" how dumb and fearful are they. One wonders if these individuals go around 'hitting' on women because their there or attractive. In truth When in the market I hit on women who *clearly showed interest* , it is a poor indictment of someone who can't distinguish between being "there" and "available". A blonk is a blonk regardless of sexual orientation.

I've played rugby and wiped bums/washed (nursed) women who can't for various reasons and not got excited, as do other men daily. Why assume that gays are any more primal that others. Not every footy boy is as dumb/ thick as the mud they play in. So why cater to a minority who think with their gonads

IF I had heroes it would be for their actions their sexual orientation IS irrelevant unless one is either a closet homophobe or needs to get both a life and perspective.

Dumb topic.

Severin
Understand where you are coming from, but there is no assumption of privacy on a nudist beach and all participants enter that domain in full knowledge that everyone is naked - men and women alike.

I am used to being perved on by men out in public but I would not want them in the shower right next to me when they are doing the perving.

My premise on this subject comes from thinking that none of us has the right to tell someone what they should feel.

If a man was to feel uncomfortable being perved on in the shower why should that not be respected and change rooms re-designed to reflect changing times. ie. that being where homosexuals are equally accepted within the game of football.

Maybe most men regardless of sexuality would prefer some privacy in ablutionary activities as opposed to this Aussie macho culture about men showering in front of each.

It is an easy problem to solve, why are we complicating it - just build private cubicles.

Pelican

I guess we are poles apart on this privacy issue. Two weeks ago I was changing out of my costume with a variety of people; all ages, sexes, in a tent on location. We were more interested into getting into our street clothes than perving after a 12 hour shoot.

It's just not a big deal. I would rather gyms spent their money on the quality of their staff and equipment rather than on separate little cubicles - which limit the number of people who can change at any one time.

I really wish more people would be more comfortable with their bodies and sexuality in general. Our paranoia merely creates a climate for the true pervert to prevail. Just think; holes drilled into change room walls, 'up-skirting' etc.

Gawd, I recall reading that young girls were told never to wear shiny patent leather shoes because someone might see their underwear reflected in them. Unbelievable.

Severin
I agree with much of what you say in respect of feeling comfortable with nudity.

There are plentiful examples of the ridiculous in regard to sexuality and nudity such as the patent leather shoe example.

However, I don't think this debate falls within that category and if women have the benefit of private cubilces I cannot see why men should be denied.

Privacy is in the eye of the beholder, what is for some important won't be for others, which is why I think it better to assume the expectation of privacy rather than not.

Moving along even faster. What fun.

We seem to have boiled it down to "does the fact that you know someone to be gay affect your own behaviour".

Not just towards them one-on-one, as individuals. But when they happen to be nearby.

Houellebecq asks me...

>>Pericles, What if a man secretly dressed as a woman entered the female change rooms. OK by you?<<

Certainly not OK.

There is a clear agreement, signalled by the sign on the change room door, that it is for women only.

Are you suggesting that there is some kind of equivalence between men infiltrating the female change rooms, and homosexual men using the male changing rooms?

That would be an interesting, if illuminating, attitude.

I can't imagine what else you were trying to say. One solution for you might be to have four categories of changing room.

>>Pericles and CJ, But KNOWING changes the group dynamics<<

This is obviously the nub. And it is also the part that I least understand... Divorce Doctor expresses it best:

>>But what of those "packing down" with Ian Roberts when he came out closet? A bit of the old "stem the rose" to use Brokeback Talk<<

Interesting point. But the know/not know problem still doesn't go away.

Say you were Hoppo'ed, what would you think?

"Uh oh, it's that gay bloke, he's just looking for a date" (Apologies to Roy and HG for that one).

Or would you think... "I think he's straight, but..."

What would the difference be, in fact, between a) knowing the bloke was gay or b) thinking the guy was straight.

Because under Acker's rules, you can never be sure... eh?

only court case I remember was ET one where female journo photographed ET in the shower and he got damages award based on photo made him look "easy", but no homo undertones