on sexually separated bathrooms

This topic has been rolling around in my brain for ages now.  I think it was probably triggered by one of those idiotic "we can't accept transgendered people because then some guy is going to put on a dress and walk into a women's bathroom and rape some little girl" arguments.  I don't really care to deal too much with that argument, but it lead to an interesting chain of thought.

This gets complicated pretty quickly, but let's deal with the basics.  I am still honestly a little iffy on the whole transgender issue, I'd like to get a chance to have a bit of a discussion with some transgender advocates to be able to try to work a few conflicts out.  But the basics are simple.  If someone was born a man but feels that she is a woman, then that says nothing about whether she is attracted to men or women.  So a man who identifies as a woman might still be sexually attracted to women, or might not be.

But this is where I hit the problem with this whole thing.  We no longer live in a world where we can assume that all men are attracted only to women and vice versa anyway.  The dude standing at the urinal next to you?  Yeah, he might be sexually attracted to you.

So I have to step back and ask, why do we sexually segregate bathrooms?  I'm serious.  Presumably the idea is that it's a function that involves things coming out of various body parts that are considered sexual, so we mustn't let ourselves see the sex that we're attracted to doing that because that would be inappropriate.  But wait, for a hetero man standing at a urinal in a public bathroom, what's worse?  Having a gay man standing next to you taking care of the same business you are, or a lesbian woman in the stall behind you?  I'm serious.  Because of social conditioning I might find the lesbian's presence to be uncomfortable, but if I'm honest with myself and ask why, I have no good answer.

There is one factor that I usually don't consider.  There's been a lot of discussion about "rape culture" lately, and it's been suggested that maybe women need a safe space to take care of such personal functions where they're safe from unwanted male attention.  Maybe that's a legitimate point, maybe that completely derails this train of thought.

But beyond that one point, the conclusion I can't avoid coming to is that sexually segregated bathrooms make no sense.  It seems that the entire idea is to keep men and women apart because of sexual reasons, that it's okay for a man to stand next to another man at the urinal because they're not interested in each other's naughty bits.  But that's not an assumption we can make anymore.  Whether they know it or not, straight people are already sharing bathrooms with people that are sexually attracted to their gender.

I offer this up more as a mental exercise than anything at this point.  Just a point of discussion.  I'd genuinely like to know if anyone has any good arguments against this.  I'm not sure I'm ready to advocate for unisex bathrooms at this point, but if I'm honest about it I can't honestly come up with any decent reasons why we shouldn't, aside from the fact that we're used to doing it the way it is now, and perhaps the argument of women needing it to be a safe space.

Mostly though I just find it interesting to consider the implications of living in a post hetero normative society.

but what of marriage?

I wrote about my high school sex education teacher telling my entire class not to have sex until they got married, and how offensive I find that now.

But I wanted to say a few words about marriage itself now.  This is a huge can of worms, but it's undeniable that, contrary to the words of the anti gay marriage people, marriage is a constantly evolving social construct.  There is no single, fixed concept of "traditional marriage", there is only the societal normality of marriage for a chosen age and society.  And while I'm aware that it can be quite different things in different parts of the world even today, I'm focusing mostly on what it is in the USA now since I live there and am part of that culture.

One other aspect of that teacher's belief that a couple should only have sex once they're married was the assumption that all relationships should eventually progress to marriage.  I have nothing against marriage, but I'm one of those people that isn't entirely certain if it's relevant anymore.  I have no problem with formally recognizing a relationship, and the legal benefits of marriage are one of the reasons that gay marriage is such an important issue.  However, what if a couple wants to just stay a committed couple?

I say good for them.  I'm aware that we have rather a significant schism in modern society regarding sexuality, but quite honestly I have no time for people who prefer the shame based philosophy of sexuality.  If they want to feel dirty about their own private parts in the privacy of their own homes then it's no concern of mine, but for the discussion of society in general I prefer to focus on the ramifications of a sex positive approach.  Once you take that step you're forced to view marriage in a different light.  It is no longer some kind of ritual that gives you the right to engage in sexual intercourse.  While some, sadly even in this country, still view it as a process of taking ownership of the woman, literally passing her from father to husband (and if you think I'm exaggerating consider yourself lucky), that view no longer enjoys unquestioned acceptance.

If a couple just wants to spend their life together without getting married then what concern is it of mine?  But let's examine this further.  What if two people want to get together and have sex sometimes for pleasure without the committed relationship part?  Once again, what concern is it of mine?

I feel the need to at least acknowledge polyamory while I'm at it.  I've encountered this before, I've had more than one chance to attend a talk given by some poly people, but for various reasons missed out.  Just to be clear, polyamory is similar to polygamy, which means sex with more than one partner, but it implies a romantic, not just sexual, relationship.  I don't want to get into the idea of three or more people getting married because I'm uncertain how that would work or what the repercussions would be, it's something I'd want to see planned out with some serious thought into how a legal arrangement between two people could be made to work with more than that.  But about poly relationships themselves, all I can say is that I'm convinced that there is no single ideal human relationship model.

Humans are remarkably flexible and even among people living within a single society different approaches can still be appropriate for different people.  I believe that marriage should be accessible for as may people in as many situations as is practical, but even then I don't believe that everyone should be expected to get married.

not until you're married?

A while ago Illinois passed a law banning abstinence only education.  This is largely a good thing, abstinence only education doesn’t work.  The research has been done.  You limit your sex education to saying “don’t do it!” and the result is teenagers doing it.  And doing it with less protection than if they’d have had a more comprehensive sex education program.

But I’m feeling a little nostalgic here.  The school system that I attended clearly had a comprehensive sex education policy.  They started on us early, I have vague memories of going on a bus ride during the school day in grade school to some kind of sex education center.  All I remember is sitting in a kind of small theater room and having someone give us the bare bones description of the human reproductive system.

But it’s in high school when the wheels fell off the process for me.  In my high school, our sex education program was combined with a general health class.  So one part of the class focused on sex, the rest on other things, probably everything from drug use to heart disease to how to give oneself a testicular self exam to check for cancer.

My teacher was great for everything else.  But when the sex education part started, he began by informing us that his religion was opposed to having sex before marriage.  He then explained that he was going to tell us not to have sex before marriage, but that he wasn’t doing that because of his religious beliefs..

And then he started to lie to us.  The only thing I remember was giving us grossly inflated condom failure rates to try to convince us that condoms weren’t reliable.

Now that’s bad enough, you dissuade kids from using birth control and, well, they don’t use birth control.  But they still have sex.  But as I’ve thought about it through the years, something else has started to anger me as well.

Where the hell did he get off telling an entire class not to have sex before marriage?  Delaying sexual activity until, well, at least after high school isn’t that bad an idea.  Learning to treat the sex act with an appropriate amount of respect is also a decent idea.  Perhaps being taught to treat your partner with respect would be a good idea too, but somehow that’s never covered.

But avoiding all sex before marriage is risky, not virtuous.  Sexual compatibility is a real thing, people are into different things and sometimes it just doesn’t work out between two people.  To head into marriage completely blind to that, having no idea what you’re into or what the other person is into and just assuming that it’ll all work out is not smart.  Nor, incidentally, is using sex as a motivation to get married.

And there’s one other thing.  I wish I’d thought to challenge that teacher and ask him what a homosexual individual was supposed to do.  This was before gay marriage was legalized anywhere in the United States.  Of course, given that his religion was big on abstinence only then there’s a decent chance it wasn’t big on homosexuality, so his reaction could have been interesting in more than one way.

not the Axe effect the commercials talk about

There's something odd I've been meaning to bring up.  I think at this point we all know about Axe products, right?  Male perfume, deodorant, and shower products sold with the specific claim that it makes men irresistible to women.

I'm hardly the most ardent feminist out there.  I imagine many would question whether I even qualify for the term.  But still, come on, commercials that show people spraying on a certain brand of perfume and then having women seemingly drawn in against their will, acting like mindless animals that can't resist the scent?  This is not a positive image to present.  Again and again, the message is presented as "use our male perfume and pick up chicks".

I've since met a whole bunch of Axe wearers.  I always figured that Axe would be used mostly by sad, pathetic teenagers in a desperate attempt to get some action.  Well apparently that stereotype doesn't work.  Some people just like the smell of their shampoo or shower gel.  So I kind of had to get over the image presented by the advertisements.  Odd that.

So this brings me to the point of this little tale.  When I found myself taking a shower in a house occupied by two gay guys, I almost laughed out loud when I saw several Axe products in the shower.  Yep, right there on the bottle was the picture depicting a silhouette of a man with the outline of a woman running her hands through his hair.  The bottles were covered in that offensively stupid marketing message, and they were being used by two guys who had no desire to have women sucked onto their bodies as if by a force beyond their control.

So maybe this is obvious.  Maybe it shouldn't be a surprise to me that gay guys can enjoy the same scents that straight people do.  I've since run into the concept of gender neutral scents, and why not?  Part of the important message of the whole GLBT revolution is that there isn't just one thing guys like and one thing women like.  It probably makes sense that it seems like it's more popular with young people in general than sad, pathetic straight guys looking to pick up women for sex.

But anyway, there's something I'd like to see the makers of Axe do.  I'd really like to see them get away from the whole "it makes women want your body" thing.  But if they're not ready to go there yet, if they don't really see a way to transition to a message that's more like "Axe, it makes you smell nice and people might enjoy that", then...  I'd love to see them make a gay commercial.

And I mean a gay equivalent of their usual commercials.  A guy sprays on their stuff and then other men are just flung towards him as if he'd just become a penis magnet.  Have fun with it, make it gloriously silly.  I feel like it would go some distance to rehabilitating their brand name a little bit.

Okay, so I see the obvious problem there.  Among the sad, pathetic teenager market at least that could be catastrophic.  Some people probably would seriously fear that they'd be having to fight off gay men with a stick if they used it.  But that's kind of my point.

I've met a lot of people who seem to like Axe products.  And it's not like the stuff makes them smell terrible, I've realized I like some of their scents.  But for the love of god, can they do something about the whole "it controls the minds of women and turns them into weak willed sex slaves" message?  A gay equivalent commercial could be an interesting first step in transitioning their message.  A bold one, to be sure, but, well, they're not exactly known at this point for subtlety.  And it could provide a decent starting point to start moving to a message that's more like "Axe, a sexy scent for sexy people" or something similar.  I'm not saying that's a revolutionary message, but it's got to be better than "Axe, it dominates the wills of women and makes them your plaything".

but why even make the choice?

So yes, I said my piece on the unspoken implications of the "they choose to be gay" argument.  But let's step back a bit.  Why would someone even choose to be gay in the first place?

No, seriously.  Let's imagine an hypothetical soon to be gay person.  He's grown up in this society, he knows the stigma attached to homosexuality.  He's heard "gay" used as a vague, almost meaningless insult.  He knows that even to not dress in an adequately masculine manner is grounds for abuse from his peers.  He is used to living under the microscope, with his every action judged by a conformist peer group.  Any example of not fitting in is met with some manner of abuse.

So then this hypothetical individual chooses to be gay.  For the love of god, why?  Why choose to paint a giant metaphorical bullseye over your head?  Why say "ya'know what, I'm attracted to girls, they're all well and good, but nah, I'm going to date other dudes just to make my life a living hell"?

It's hard enough finding a single individual you want to spend the rest of your life with as a straight person.  Why on Earth would you choose to pick from a much smaller pool of potential mates?

I'm not saying that people always make the most logical choices in their lives.  But this idea that homosexuals choose to be that way, that they choose to join a marginalized minority where they'll face constant discrimination, is just dumb.  I mean, really, they choose to become so persecuted that some end up committing suicide just to make the pain stop?  The implication really is that gay people are thinking "well, I could decide to date Suzy instead of Adam and make all this stop, but nah, I'll just kill myself instead".

choice for thee, but not for me

We've all heard some side to the "people choose to be gay" argument.  I agree with those that have said that it's not even a worthwhile argument.  Does it matter if it's a choice?  If I choose to play dungeons and dragons as a hobby, does that mean it's perfectly legitimate to outlaw it for no good reason?

We all know what "you choose to be gay" really means.  It's the last gasp of a dying conscience.  It's a person who realizes that he is doing some very uncool things to a fellow human being.  It is someone who is free to engage in socially and governmentally sanctioned relationships who is working to deny the same ability to a whole class of people.  And at some point he realizes what he's doing.  He's working to harm other people.  And he has a choice.  Stop trying to do evil, or rationalize it.  Sadly he chooses to make himself feel better instead of making the world a better place, and he does it by telling himself that it's really their fault that he's doing this to them.  If they'd just stop being gay he wouldn't have to work to dehumanize them.

But still something has always bothered me about this.  I mean, the argument carries with it the clear assumption that the person using it understands sexuality to be a matter of choosing which gender to get into sexual relations with.  It implies that the person making that claim is equally attracted to both genders.  That he chooses to be straight.

I tried asking someone on youtube this once.  He'd pulled out the choose to be gay argument, and I asked him if he realized that that implied that he was gay.  He just said something to the effect of "you must have misunderstood me" and restated his argument without changing anything.  It was still there, the unstated assumption that all people choose which gender to be sexual with.  We went around and around like this, with him refusing to even indicate that he understood what I was saying, until I got exasperated and asked him point blank if he chose to be straight.  Nope, he told me.  But he couldn't let it go at that, he had to follow it up with an assertion that gay people do choose to be gay.

I don't really know what to make of this.  I feel like he was genuinely puzzled.  He seemed to be a legitimately straight individual, but somehow he didn't see the hypocrisy in demanding that while he can't choose which gender to be attracted to, gay people absolutely can and do.

Is it a failure of empathy?  Forgetting that GLBT people are even human?  Have these people gotten so accustomed to thinking of GLBT people as "the other" that they casually assume that they must be governed by a completely different set of primitive drives?  No, that doesn't work, because if they believed that then they might be willing to consider that some men want to sleep with other men AND NOT WOMEN.  But that thought never seems to come up.

So what is it?  A lack of curiosity?  An unwillingness to question their own biases?  Knowledge, on some low level, that this is a bullshit defense that doesn't even make sense, but also knowledge that this is what allows them to not see themselves as monsters, so they refuse to let it go?

are you suuuure you the meaning of the story of Sodom?

So on to my inspiration for starting making posts again.  On the issue of religious objections to homosexuality, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is near and dear to many believer's hearts.  Of course it's popular to point out that the bible says homosexuality is an abomination, but the problem with that is that atheists read the bible too, and they found out that the bible also says shellfish are an abomination, as is wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics.  Yet you can readily see anti gay bigots wearing poly/cotton blends and eating at Red Lobster instead of picketing the place.

So yes, Sodom and Gomorrah seems to be a good story.  God smited two entire cities because of the icky buttsex.  Surely that shows that it grosses god out as much as it does nasty little bigots here on Earth.  Except apparently not.

I was originally linked to that video by a blogger who I tend to refer to as "the non evil evangelical" but perhaps I should just call him Fred Clark.  He reminded me of it in a blog post last Sunday.  Fred likes to post passages from the bible on Sundays, and while a lot of them tend to leave me cold this one interested me.  Go on, read it.  It's god lecturing the population of two cities about why he's unhappy with them.  He starts off by saying that making sacrifices to him isn't enough to make him happy, but then he says why he's unhappy.  I'm writing this in the Blogger android app and it seems to lack blockquote formatting abilities, so I'll have to do this crudely.  But anyway, yes, why he's unhappy with them:

"your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow."

You'll notice a complete lack of instructions to keep gays from marrying.  Learning to do good, seeking justice and rescuing the oppressed could easily encompass stopping trying to discriminate against GLBT people.

So yes, odd that.  The centerpiece of the evidence for why god hates the gays really seems to be about hating selfish assholes who oppress minorities and take more than their fair share of the pie.

Is it worth noting that the tea party types elected to office on a wave of theological purity seem to mostly care about keeping gays oppressed and cutting spending on services for the poor?  Might I be excused the rhetorical question of asking just who the inhabitants of Sodom really are today?

Look, I'm an atheist.  I only see the bible as a collection of often contradictory stories written by many people that reflect the times they were living in.  There are certainly some good ideas in it, but there are a lot of terrible ones too.  I seek better reasons for supporting or opposing something than "ancient mythology says I should".  But when people who claim to be following ancient mythology end up citing passages that argue against them, what's an atheist to think?