FT209: “The first openly gay NFL player will be as distracting as Tim Tebow.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 14th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

The Heart we see on Valentine’s Day is actually a Woman’s Butt as she Bends Over

We have locker rooms for women.  And locker rooms for men.  Because we want an environment where women feel comfortable and safe to undress in.  To be stripped to their underwear in.  Where they can walk around nude.  And shower naked.  Things most people—men included—don’t feel comfortable doing in front of other people.  Especially people of the opposite sex.

We’ve seen a man talking to a pretty and buxom lady in many a television show and movie.  With the man’s eyes meandering down to the woman’s ample breasts.  In fact, we’ve seen some men in extreme discomfort as they try NOT to look.  Especially when a woman’s boobs are straining the buttons on her blouse.  Or she’s showing a lot of cleavage.  Those who are caught looking may hear an angry “Hey, buddy, my eyes are up here!”

But it’s just not breasts that attract a man’s gaze.  Men like to watch women from behind, too.  Watching their pert behinds as they sashay by.  A woman can sometimes feel those eyes on her derriere.  And may respond with an exasperated, “Stop looking at my ass!”  But men have long enjoyed looking at a woman’s posterior.  So much so that the heart we see on Valentine’s Day—the symbol of love—is actually a woman’s butt as she bends over.

Seeing a Penis in the Women’s Locker Room will no doubt make some Women Uncomfortable

For these reasons women get their own locker rooms and restrooms.  So they don’t have to feel those unwelcomed gazes in their most personal moments.  Or feel embarrassed about their bodies should they not look like Playboy playmates.  And so a woman doesn’t have to worry about sexual assault in the locker room if she’s the only woman in there undressing in front of a group of men.

Even the Army understands these concerns women have while undressed.  So much so that they don’t even make them undress in front of other women.  The men may have to stand in a line and strip down to their underwear, bend over and grab their ankles for a very public rectal exam (see Women to Serve in Combat despite having Lower Physical Standards and Private Rectal Exams in Training posted 2/9/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  But not the women.  No, the women will enjoy bending over only in front of the doctor.  While in a private room.

So we give women an environment where they can feel safe.  And not where people can look at them in all of their nakedness with who knows what on their minds.  Especially in high schools.  And colleges.  Because we all know what college boys have on their minds.  So we keep anyone with a penis out of the women’s locker room.  Unless that person with a penis is transgendered (see California law lets transgender students pick bathrooms, teams to join by Holly Yan posted 8/13/2013 on CNN).  Which no doubt will make some women uncomfortable.  Taking off their clothes and standing naked next to someone who undresses and reveals a penis.  A woman’s normal reaction would be to quickly cover up her nakedness.  And call for help.  Is she supposed to feel comfortable and relaxed to be naked next to someone who claims to be a woman even though that someone has a penis?  At the least she may be thinking “is this person for real?  Or is this just a clever way to see me naked?”

The first Openly Gay Player in the NFL will go out of his way not to “Gay it Up”

Athletes are some of the most physically fit people in the world.  And some of the most attractive.  Men and women.  Which is why there’s a lot of stuff happening in those Olympic villages between or after the events.  The great Italian, Alberto Tomba, not only had great skills on the slopes.  But he had great skills off the slopes.  As he was quite the ladies’ man.  And today’s technology just makes it easier to hook up in the Olympic village (see Tinder Hook-Ups Off the Hook Among Sochi Athletes posted 2/12/2014 on ABC News).

The social networking tool may be new since the last Winter Olympics, but with 3,000 athletes in the prime of their lives from around the world packed into Sochi, they’re bound to seek an outlet through electronic means or otherwise.

“It’s like making the ingredients of a huge stew – a stew of sexual ingredients,” said Dr. Judy Kuriansky, a sex therapist and clinical psychologist at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York City. “There is stress, which causes tension, and anxiety and energy, and a massive outpouring of chemicals in the body – adrenaline and endorphins. It’s a powerful concoction of chemicals.”

“Everyone knows the runner’s high,” she said. “Olympian athletes certainly have it – it’s orgasmic.”

Kuriansky said all the beautiful and fit athletes tend not to “think about their conscience.”

“Winners or losers, on top of the world or devastated, it tends to make you grab the moment – carpe diem,” she said. “This is your moment.”

Professional athletes are in the prime of their sexual lives, too.  And it’s just not the quarterback of the football team getting the pretty ladies.  For when you’re this fit and at the top of your game the ladies come to you.  Which is probably why the NFL cheerleaders don’t share a locker room with the NFL players.  Manly men and beautiful women together undressed in the prime of their sexual lives?  In a stew of sexual ingredients?  That massive outpouring of adrenaline and endorphins?  No, putting penises and vaginas together in that boiling stew may lead to something orgasmic.  Which may distract from the game.

We now have the first openly gay player about to enter the NFL draft.  And despite being a professional athlete in the prime of his sexual life he will not even notice the naked men in the locker room he shares.  Just as a college boy could share the women’s locker room and not notice the undressed women.  Just as an NFL player could share the cheerleader locker room and not notice their glorious naked bodies.  And no one will ever have to say, “Hey, my eyes are up here.”  Or “stop looking at my ass.”

A gay man may find an NFL locker room heaven to be in (based on the number of search results for ‘gay porn scenes in a locker room’).  Just as a straight man would find it heaven to be invited into an NFL cheerleader locker room (based on all those R-rated movies where guys are spying on or sneaking into the girls’ locker room).  But not a gay NFL player.  No.  He will be a professional.  At all times.  Because he will be the first openly gay player in the NFL.  He will go out of his way not to ‘gay it up’ to borrow a line from Stephen Colbert.  He may make some players uncomfortable.  But after a few games that will go away.  No one will feel threatened in the locker room.  But he will still be a great distraction.  For Tim Tebow won the Heisman Trophy yet he plays for no NFL team.  Not even as a backup quarterback.  Why?  Well, part of the reason is they say his style of play does not translate well to the NFL.  But there is another reason.  Because of the distraction he is.  He was getting a lot of press for his Christian beliefs.  And his ‘Tebowing’ after a touchdown.  He was just too Christian.  And too big of a distraction from the game (he even had groupies).  Just as having a gay player in an NFL locker room will be.  For the team that picks him will no doubt spend a lot of their time talking about having the first openly gay player in the NFL.  And should he not do well in the NFL imagine that head coach explaining to the press why he cut the first gay NFL player from his team.  This will be the great distraction.  The media wanting to know if he’s a distraction.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Women in Combat Zones have been issued Rape Whistles to Protect themselves from their Fellow Soldiers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Watch a realistic war movie.  Like PlatoonSaving Private Ryan.  Or Band of Brothers.  And study the scenes where the combat is so close that it devolves into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where brute strength and dirty fighting kills someone.  Where men are reduced to animals in the wild.  Snorting and grunting and gasping for life.  Until someone can stab another to death.  Snap a neck.  Or choke someone to death.  For when the enemy gets this close you can’t use your rifle.  All you have is your physical strength.  And whoever is stronger typically wins these horrific hand-to-hand encounters.  This is combat at its worse.  Where the killing is close.  You hear the dying breath of the enemy.  And look them in the eyes as they die.

Now there is a drive to put women in combat.  Up to now they have only served in support roles that engaged in periodic combat situations.  Serving valiantly.  And paying a heavy price in the wounds they receive.  But they end their day in a rear area.  In a base with beds to sleep in.  Hot chow.  And showers.  They haven’t ‘rucked up’ and gone on extended patrols with the infantry or Special Forces.  But some say it is now time that women do (see ‘No girls allowed’: Iraq war vet Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on opening combat missions to women by Rick Klein, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps posted 7/3/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard why she supports the military’s new policy to allow women to serve in combat roles, and the Iraq war veteran speaks from experience.

“I can tell you during my deployment, there were missions that I– volunteered for and was not allowed to go on, simply because I’m a woman,” Gabbard, D-Hawaii, tells Top Line. “They said, ‘Sorry, no. No girls allowed…’”

Gabbard also brings a first-hand perspective to the issue of sexual assault in the military, saying she “heard and saw incidents” of sexual assault within her military camp when she was in Iraq.

“We got issued rape whistles so that as we walk out of our tent or walk out of our hooch, we’ve got our body armor, we’ve got our helmet, our weapon, and we’ve got our rape whistle,” Gabbard recalls. “It was an eye-opening experience to have to consider that fact when we’re serving overseas in Iraq and…this is a risk or a danger that exists.”

Women have different physical standards in training.  To help them complete training.  Because they don’t have the same strength of men.  And can’t do what men do.  There are some who can but by and large if they didn’t have these different standards we wouldn’t have as many women in the military today.  Or have to issue rape whistles.  For if a women met the same physical standards as a man she wouldn’t need that rape whistle.  For she would be able to defend herself from a would be rapist.  Just as she would be able to defend herself if the enemy penetrated their defensive line and the combat devolved into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where blowing a rape whistle wouldn’t cause the enemy to stop trying to kill her.

Sure, some will say, a woman may be able to protect herself if it was one on one.  But what if she was being gang-raped?  Then she would still need that rape whistle.  If it was that bad in the military then we shouldn’t have women there in the first place.  For it’s an obvious distraction to the mission if we have to focus so much on sexual assault in these rear areas of deployed troops.  And what would happen once these troops left these rear areas and entered combat?  There were a lot of unpopular second lieutenants who were ‘accidentally’ shot by their own troops in Vietnam.  For putting men on report.  Or just being incompetent in leading men into battle.  When the bullets started flying accidents happened.  Grenades get tossed around and accidentally end up in the wrong foxhole.  And if they happen to have an enemy rifle, why, they could say the lieutenant fell gloriously in battle under enemy fire.  Any gang of soldiers who would try to gang-rape a soldier in their unit would have no second thoughts about making their problem go away in the field.  You can’t put them all in the brig.  If you did you wouldn’t have enough to send into the field.  So soldiers will enter the field with some possible bad blood.  And scores to settle.

Is it this bad in the military?  Probably not.  Can it be?  Perhaps.  For you’re always going to have trouble when mixing men and women together.  Officers may be gentlemen.  But soldiers are cold-blooded killers in the field.  Who revert to their animalistic past.  Where it’s kill or be killed.  Thinking that we can flip a switch on them to change them from cold-blooded killers to gentlemen is asking a lot of them.  And distracts from the mission.  For the few women who can meet the men’s physical standards is it worth it to play with these social experiments on the best military in the world?  Will these women make the best military better?  Will they not change it?  Or will they degrade it?  None of these three options make a compelling case to tamper with the best military in the world.  So why do it?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,