Locker Room Double Standard

[capt. nemo]

I think the straight men's views are under-represented here. I don't think you're out of line in raising your fist dude. Since we're talking double standards i think we'd all agree a woman can smack a man if he's really inappropriate, but if a man threatens to hit a gay man, he's "insecure" and "hot-headed" among other things?

Haha, that's rich! So have you ever been smacked by a woman?

 

[slate_australis]

I think the straight men's views are under-represented here. I don't think you're out of line in raising your fist dude. Since we're talking double standards i think we'd all agree a woman can smack a man if he's really inappropriate, but if a man threatens to hit a gay man, he's "insecure" and "hot-headed" among other things?

I think there's a danger here in equating the term "hot-headed" with some kind of irrationalty. I think there was a strong and heated reaction to this guys actions - just because he's a big guy doesn't mean he can't be threatened - and I don't mean his masculinity - I mean his personal space was invaded by an aggressive man who was unable listen - that's threatening. I don't think his reaction was homophobic or showing some kind of insecurity. I like guys and I've told many (even a few I liked) to fuck off because they were too close.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I think the straight men's views are under-represented here. I don't think you're out of line in raising your fist dude. Since we're talking double standards i think we'd all agree a woman can smack a man if he's really inappropriate, but if a man threatens to hit a gay man, he's "insecure" and "hot-headed" among other things?

I don't think raising a fist or "smacking" someone is justified, unless you are in imminent danger of being physically assaulted. That doesn't appear to have been the case here, although, in the heat of the moment, it's hard to know for sure.

Hate words are equally unjustified, but as I have said, they're somewhat understandable when the speaker is frustrated, and has already attempted to rebuff the other party on multiple occasions (by moving and verbally) to no effect.

IMO, raising the fist or actually hitting the unwanted suitor would only be appropriate if the suitor had grabbed/fondled the victim, or threatened physical coercion. This applies to both female and male victims.

 

[BigA]

Haha, that's rich! So have you ever been smacked by a woman?

well, i don't think you're going to get much agreement here (i hope) since you think that guy's trolling was funny and that you're sick of straight guys complaining about it. No, ive never been smacked

edit: actually, you're right it's kinda funny. but it wouldnt be if it were me

 

[Lex]

I think the straight men's views are under-represented here. I don't think you're out of line in raising your fist dude. Since we're talking double standards i think we'd all agree a woman can smack a man if he's really inappropriate, but if a man threatens to hit a gay man, he's "insecure" and "hot-headed" among other things?

No, we do NOT all agree that violence is the answer. Stop being so fucking ignorant.

Matthew, DC DEEP, Snoozen, NCbear, Fortiesfun and some others have really elucidated the real issues here.

Unwanted sexual advances is not a gay issue, but rather a MALE issue.

 

[snoozan]

So... you're telling me I'm not entitled to be offended or upset when I am the victim of sexual predation or crude, unwanted advances, because I happen to be a straight male? Or are you saying that nobody is entitled to be offended?

I never said that you (or the OP) are not entitled to be offended. Getting cruised or hit on when you don't want to be by someone you're not even remotely attracted to is annoying and can be offensive.

However, my problem is using the terms "victimization" and "sexual predation" to describe something that simply offended the OPs sensibilities (gay guy and old and fat). In order to be a victim or prey, the person doing the victimization and predation has to be able to somehow overpower you (in this case, physically). From what I can tell, this was not the case.

Using these very charged terms to describe this incident only serves to weaken the real meaning of what sexual predation is. The OP was in no real danger of being molested or raped.

I asked my husband about this last night because he's very straight and has gotten hit on by gay men a lot. His response was that the times it's happened, he said he wasn't interested once or twice, and if he had to, walked away and let it go. Like me, he just didn't see the big deal. It's not like the guy has you physically restrained and is trying to play with your dick. All he did was look and say something once.

BTW, the OPs story about moving from room to room may have been misinterpreted by our troll as trying to find somewhere private where they could tryst. The OP never said in all those times moving back and forth, "I'm not interested, leave me alone." Instead the OP got angry, told him to fuck off and soon after physically threatened the troll.

As I said before, I've had to deal with annoying, unwanted attention from nasty ass men my whole life. It's offensive, but it's not the big drama that it's being made into on this thread by many of you, straight and gay alike. I still assert that this is an issue of the OPs aesthetics and homophobia. If this had been a hot girl and not a old gay guy doing this, he'd instead be posting on here about this awesome blowjob he got in the locker room at the gym and how hot the whole thing was.

I refuse to get up in arms about this because it's just not the big deal that it's being made out to be. Annoying creepy and rude? Yes. Sexual predation and victimization? No way.

Snooz

P.S. Why the hell are two of the four tags on this thread descriptions of the OPs penis? What the hell does his circumcsion status have to do with ANYTHING that this thread is (supposed to be) about? The case just gets stronger and stronger that this whole thing about vanity.

I am going on the assumption that, as usual, the poster picked his own tags.

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

I don't blame the guy. I might not have said the word "faggot," but I would have been as aggressive and annoyed about the unwanted attention. I couldn't help but think that the f-word brought out a lot of irritation in responsive. Yeah, it's an ugly word, and yeah, it could have been better chosen, but in NO way does that legitimate what the gay guy was doing. BMAC could've said, "Dude, I'm not interested," but some guys being guys just don't take hints well at all.

As "unmanly" as it sounds, I hope the next time this happens, you just walk out of the shower, suds and all, and tell the front desk that so-and-so really needs to get lost. You deserve privacy and a right to get clean after a workout.

 

[fortiesfun]

Since we're talking double standards i think we'd all agree a woman can smack a man if he's really inappropriate, but if a man threatens to hit a gay man, he's "insecure" and "hot-headed" among other things?

I can't imagine who you think is going to agree that women can "smack" a man whenever she wants, but I certainly don't. And, yes, a man who threatens violence against any other man, gay or straight, over nothing more than verbal provocation is both "insecure" and "hot-headed." I'm shocked you think otherwise. I still don't understand what is so hard about saying, "I'm not sure what signal you interpreted as my being open to your advances, but I'm not. I think this is inappropriate behavior in a lockerroom."

 

[bigmuscles_averagecock]

I shouldn't have had to fear this guy, or any guy, touching me. No one has the right to touch me. No one has the right to make me fear being touched. Setting aside a regrettable choice of words, threatening someone who keeps invading my personal space is completely justifiable. Actually punching him, which I wouldn't have even done had he touched me (being physically powerful has its responsibilites) is unjustifiable.

I've received several private messages, more than 6, which have said something along the lines of "if that's you in your avatar I can't blame the guy for staring and commenting...". Although I believe these are intended as compliments, it speaks to the nature of improper interpersonal behavior which is at the heart of this issue. It's comparable to saying "that chick is inviting guys to grab her ass by wearing such a short skirt." It's a locker room shower, where nudity exists due to hygiene, not sexual reasons. No matter what part of my body I was cleaning, in such a forum it should only be interpreted by others as cleaning, nothing else. Men's and women's locker rooms and showers are separated due to the intertwined nature of sex and nudity in this world. Hopefully we don't need to make separate straight men's and gay men's locker rooms for the same reason. I'm not proposing it or necessarily in favor of it, but it would be hypocritical to believe that men's and women's locker rooms be segregated but not straight men's and gay men's .

There you go, something else to attack me for, or just some fodder for thought and opinion.

 

[Lex]

No one has the right to touch me.

I agree 1000%. No one should touch anyone else without their permission.

No one has the right to make me fear being touched.

You should examine this part of what you said. Someone else can not not make you fear being touched. If you fear being touched by another male, that is something that you have to work out on your own. Why d you fear the touch of another male? (that was rhetorical). A gay male may find the touch of a woman UNWANTED--that is different than saying they FEAR it. Statements like this is why some posters would label you as homophobic.

I shouldn't have had to fear this guy, or any guy, touching me.

Nope. In a perfect world, we would not fear the touch of others. Men are socialized to feel that being close to (touchy, loving) with other men in wrong. This is why there have been generations of stoic, unavailable fathers who raise equally emotionally unavailable sons. Hopefully we'll get to a point where mal-male affection is not seen as this evil, scary thing.

 

[fortiesfun]

No one has the right to touch me. No one has the right to make me fear being touched. Setting aside a regrettable choice of words, threatening someone who keeps invading my personal space is completely justifiable.

No one has the right to touch you without permission. Agreed. But others don't make you fear being touched. You do that to yourself. And if you fear it just because a gay man is attracted to you, that is homophobia in its purest sense. (Homophobia literally means fear of homosexuals, after all.) Most the commentary in this thread arises because the possibility that you were going to be "touched" seems remarkably remote. And sorry, but threatening someone to clear your "personal space" really isn't justifiable, especially if your personal space is in a public place. It is not that the underlying point isn't right, you're entitled to your privacy, but the degree of response is out of proportion to the problem. You can take care of the issue with much less angst and far smaller reactions.

I've received several private messages, more than 6, which have said something along the lines of "if that's you in your avatar I can't blame the guy for staring and commenting...". Although I believe these are intended as compliments, it speaks to the nature of improper interpersonal behavior which is at the heart of this issue. It's comparable to saying "that chick is inviting guys to grab her ass by wearing such a short skirt."

This is actually the first point on which I have completely agreed with you, but those comments are offensive, and the analogy holds in all ways except that staring is not the same as grabbing ass. It is actually like saying "that chick is inviting guys to stare at her by wearing such a short skirt." You've said nothing to make me believe that you would approve of such staring, but can you see that few of us would approve of a young woman making physically threatening and sexist comments to end it, as opposed to agreeing she could simply ask the offender to stop staring?

It's a locker room shower, where nudity exists due to hygiene, not sexual reasons. No matter what part of my body I was cleaning, in such a forum it should only be interpreted by others as cleaning, nothing else.

Great point.

Men's and women's locker rooms and showers are separated due to the intertwined nature of sex and nudity in this world. Hopefully we don't need to make separate straight men's and gay men's locker rooms for the same reason. I'm not proposing it or necessarily in favor of it, but it would be hypocritical to believe that men's and women's locker rooms be segregated but not straight men's and gay men's.

Which, as usual, you push too far. It is the lack of proportion in your perceptions that is the issue.

There you go, something else to attack me for, or just some fodder for thought and opinion.

It is really not an attack to point out that you have a part in the situation. Everyone of the board has agreed that harrassment is out of line, and in that sense we have all defended you, including that you have a right to address it. But many of us have questioned the manner in which you chose to address it and your perceptions of gay men in general. Encouraging you to see the situation in more shades of gray, accepting responsibility for your actions, and moving on is far from flaming you and could actually be in your best interest.

 

[B_josiah852]

You should have rinsed, left the shower and locker room and told who ever is in charge. This probably wouldn't have been the first complaint filed against this guy and if it was they would have probably started to watch the guy closer. I would still go and tell someone. And tell them how the security guard responded also. I would tell them if he responded to me like that again I would file sexual harrassment charges against the gym.

 

[machomansgris]

Matthew, DC DEEP, Snoozen, NCbear, Fortiesfun and some others have really elucidated the real issues here.

I am so impressed with the clarity and depth of perception of these members. Thank you for your enlightenment. Posts like this make LPSG a learning space of great value. I hope BigMuscle's direct involvement has not prevented him from learning as much as I have. Thank you BigMuscles for providing the seed that elicited such wisdom.

 

[BigLittleMan]

Way to take a particular incident and turn it into one big homophobic generalization. Your bigotry is award-winning.

i find it very interesting how certain people are taking offense to this thread very personally, almost as if it were about them. hmm...

what's that shakespeare line "the lady doth protest too much methinks"?

 

[BigA]

No, we do NOT all agree that violence is the answer. Stop being so fucking ignorant.

Sorry, i forgot this wasnt the real world. But if everyone doesnt agree a woman can smack a man if he's a jerk, then i digress from my double standard thing.

 

[Gillette]

I fear that we women are being given more credit for decorum than we are due. It was suggested earlier that we would be content with simply telling someone hitting on us "No thanks". That may be the case if he has merely offered to buy me a drink. However, if he has followed me around the bar, seated himself next to me repeatedly after I have moved several times, then offers to "clean my pipes", I am going to be very profane in my response accompanied with an offer to help him sing soprano.

Keep in mind now that this is a venue where the participants are clothed.

I have been in a changeroom, unclothed, and seen the reflection in the mirror of a guy peering over the curtain at me. Had I been clothed I would have hit him, no question, no hesitation. As it was I cussed a blue streak as I was left shaking in fury.

Manners are well and good. Telling someone that their behavior is inappropriate is fine up to a point. Telling them that their advances are unwelcome is fine up to a point. But for myself there is a point where I'm positive that they don't need to be informed politely what you think of their behavior because they simply MUST know that what they are doing is WRONG. My feeling on this is that if they lack the manners to understand that their behavior is atrocious then my explaining it to them nicely isn't going to have any effect.

I agree that "faggot" is a hate word and definitely ill chosen. But I have tried several times to imagine myself in this position and I can't concieve of a situation where I could be calm and polite if a stranger followed me around then when I was naked/vulnerable offered to wash my vagina for me.

I'm very sorry if this means I lose points with some of you for lack of cultured bahavior.

I would also like to address the homophobic issue raised by the OP saying he feared being touched by this person. Just because it was a gay man offering to do the touching does not, IMO, make this fear of homophobic origin. Ultimately I can only speak for myself, but I think it's natural that all of us fear/dread/loathe/hate the idea of our genitals being touched by anyone other than whom we wish to do so. In the two examples I gave I would absolutely fear being touched by either of the two men, that does not make me androphobic (if that's even a word), it means simply that I would feel threatened by the touch of someone who clearly wishes to impose themself on me.

 

[BigA]

nice post, gillette.

P.S. are you the best a man can get? lol

 

[dannymawg]

I am so impressed with the clarity and depth of perception of these members. Thank you for your enlightenment. Posts like this make LPSG a learning space of great value. I hope BigMuscle's direct involvement has not prevented him from learning as much as I have. Thank you BigMuscles for providing the seed that elicited such wisdom.

Seconded from another new member.

i find it very interesting how certain people are taking offense to this thread very personally, almost as if it were about them. hmm...

what's that shakespeare line "the lady doth protest too much methinks"?

If this is pointed at fortiesfun (duh), you obviously haven't been reading this thread, or at least other threads where Doc has posted. Or reading and not comprehending.

I got in on this one early, and still watching with great interest.

 

[Pye]

OK-- can we just state the obvious? The situation was handled poorly. BMAC was feeling harrassed by the troll and he was. Use of the FAGGOT word was unnecessary and homophobic...but sometimes words such as that can come out of someone's mouth when they are feeling threatened and angry. I believe it is a forgivable offence. The persistence of the troll is not forgivable. However, as many have stated, a simple and firm, I AM NOT INTERESTED AND YOU MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE, may have stopped the troll and embarrassed him. It's easy to analyze the situation now with woulda/shoulda's.

The manner in which the security guard handled the situation was awful. Which makes me wonder what conversation BMAC actually had with the security guard. Was it laced with profanity and peppered with more hateful remarks? Judging from BMAC's pics he could then mistakingly look like the intimidating force that needed to be set straight.

In this day and age it's too dangerous to threaten anyone with violence as you never know how far to take it. The troll in this situation may have waited outside the gym in his car and ran him down. You just never know!

There are many sides to every story and we are only privy to a synopsis from which to make our judgements. My own experience with unwanted attention from a troll resulted in my looking at him shaking my head and walking away while muttering just loud enough for him to hear "JEEZ, some people just don't know when to stop".

 

[Glansman]

I shouldn't have had to fear this guy,


What??? What??? Muscle-bound he-man (with virility/masculinity doubts) is quaking in the boots he isn't wearing because some apparently "queenie troll" is gazing at his bits?
This whole thing has got out of proportion and out of control.
I think you've had enough response to your initial point without throwing yet more petrol on the smouldering embers.
Honestly, I think you protest too much - as Shakespeare said in slightly different wording. Makes one wonder.....