Search Box

Tuesday, June 28, 2016


I went for a swim the other day with my daughter at a nearby Y. while coming out of the shower in the men's locker room afterward, a naked man was coming out of the steam room opposite. when he saw me he came to an abrupt halt and his face lit up. His twitchy body language said, "Well hello there!"

I looked away and walked over to my locker. I got my gym bag out and started to get into my clothes, then sat on the bench to put on my socks and shoes when I noticed that he was just standing there, directly behind me, still naked.

I though he might be waiting to get to his locker, so asked, warily, "Do you want part of this bench?"

He replied airily, "Oh, I'm in no hurry. I have plenty of time. I don't have to catch a train anymore, or commute. Maybe some day you can be like me." He sounded awfully self-satisfied.

I thought, you're the last thing I would want to be like. But I wanted to keep the conversation to  a minimum, so said nothing.

A few moments later I squeezed some skin cream out of a small vial, and a small globule went on my bag.

"Oh, some got on your bag," the man exclaimed and reached forward as if to wipe it off.

I quickly held up a hand and gruffly said, "That's okay -- I got it," and wiped it off myself. (I didn't want him touching my gym bag.)

He was obviously getting a charge out of prancing around naked; he seemed to think he was in a gay bathhouse.

A normal, well-adjusted person wouldn't continue to push after someone acted standoffish. And to suggest to a complete stranger that the stranger could aspire to be like him demonstrated an extraordinarily clueless vanity.

I couldn't help but get the impression that his weirdness was inextricably tied to his sexuality. All I could think as I was exiting the locker room was, that's the kind of guy who inspired the use of the word "queer" to describe homosexuals, because there was just something really queer about him, in every sense of the term.

Some people will read this and accuse me of homophobia. But isn't it sexual harassment if he stands around completely naked, trying to continue a one-sided conversation?

If a woman feels repulsed by a pushy guy, the guy is assumed to have been harassing her. But if a guy feels repulsed by a pushy guy, he must be guilty of homophobia.

I support gay marriage. If I meet a nice, helpful gay guy, I'll appreciate his character.  If I meet a witty gay guy, I enjoy his sense of humor. But this guy inspired nothing but disgust.

The point being, gays have reclaimed the word "queer," in an aggressive/defensive sort of way. Maybe they ought to reconsider, just keep it at LGBT and drop the Q.


Justin said...

Have you considered he could also have been a sociopath? (Not to devalue your observation about homosexuals more generally.)

I've had a couple experiences where strangers will impose/intrude in that kind of a way, and looking back now I realize they were probably sociopaths. The combination of flattery and put-downs, specifically, is what makes me think that of him.

John Craig said...

Justin --
Honestly, I didn't get those vibes from him. It was more as if he was disturbed. A slick sociopath would have a better sense of the type of reception he was receiving. And there didn't seem to be anything dangerous about this guy. (Although, I know, that' show serial killers are successful, by not seeming dangerous.) This guy was more just narcissistic, in a queer, self-satisfied way.

Justin said...

That's interesting.

I was surprised to read you support gay marriage though, given your clear-eyed views on race, for example. Marriage was an institution designed for the raising of children, plain and simple.

John Craig said...

Justin --
What you say is true, but I see it as a matter of equal rights. (Which is why I'm against affirmative action.) And, there are plenty of childless marriages (for whatever reason), and nobody suggests they be annulled. Also, I think marriage in general is a stabilizing force in society, which isn't a bad thing, and there's no reason it couldn't serve that function among gays. (Although I recognize that most gay marriages, at least those between men, tend to be somewhat open in nature.)

Anonymous said...

Whoa! I am sorry you had that kind of experience. It's amazing how clueless the guy was. The pick factor is way up there.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
It was no big deal, happened very quickly and was just mildly unpleasant. (And I have that same problem with Auto-Correct, I know you meant "ick.")

Anonymous said...

Thank you, that's the word that I meant to say. Anyway, the man came across as weird. I think that I would have felt repulsed.


Anonymous said...


Just what you needed after a workout huh.. All you want to do is shower, get dressed and get on with your day after enjoying some time spent with Becka. The last thing you need to see is a strange penis for more than a second. Give my best to the family.

Mad Dog

John Craig said...

Mad Dog --
Thank you. I honestly don't mind gays, and after a lifetime of them thinking I might be one of the brotherhood, I'm almost used to being approached. But there was something about this guy's personality that was really grotesque.

Best to you and yours.

Steven said...

I remember in a gymn/swimming baths once, a gay guy kept looking at me in a way that I can only describe as predetorial. I can understand how some women can be made uncomfortable by lascivious looks and guys that seem, as they say, a bit rapey. Based on that one experience, I'd say that's a real thing, not just feminists shaming men.

I got propositioned once too. On Christmas eve going into the main train station in my city... it was empty and a very normal looking and sounding guy, the type you'd think of as a dad kind of figure, said very mundanely, as if asking for the time, "excuse me mate, will you fuck me?"

John Craig said...

Steven --
I guess he meant mate in the American sense of the term, not the British/Australian sense.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking, though it can be annoying. What the guy described in the post was doing was a little different, coming up and standing right behind me and then telling me I could aspire to be like him.

Mark Caplan said...

Eric Fanning, confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate, is the first "openly gay" secretary of the army. That's how the MSM media has characterized it, as though there had been a long line of closeted queers running the military since the War of 1812, but now at long last we have one who is openly gay.

With a gay commander, soldiers who are gay-raped will likely be less inclined to press charges. On a lighter note, gay sex in the military does give a new twist to "dishonorable discharge."

"Gay Rape in Military 15 Times Worse Than Reported"

John Craig said...

Mark --
Ha, dishonorable discharge, yes.

Does annoyed doubt that the only reason Fanning was chosen over others was because he's openly gay? (I guess Obama feels more comfortable dealing with him.)

Wow, amazing statistic about male-male rape. Interesting how that gets so little press, whereas the relatively fewer male-on-female rapes that take place in the military get all sorts of airtime. (Though, I'm guessing those are underreported to the authorities as well.)

Pangur said...

Some alternative views from a forum near you:

John Craig said...

Pangur --
The second one didn't come through, but the first one was amazing. I actually had mixed feelings about the scene that guy described though. My first thought was, yeah, that's unbelievably disgusting, and that sort of (mis)behavior should get more airtime. But then I thought, yes, the number of partners gay guys have is off the charts, and no wonder HIV etc. spread so fast in that community. But if these types of opportunities were available to you heterosexually, wouldn't you take them? If I'd had the opportunity to sleep with a thousand attractive women in my life, well, it would take a better man than me to turn that down. And I suspect most heterosexual guys feel the same way. The only reason we DON'T behave like that is because we can't. (I'm not referring to the specific sexual practices described, just the numbers involved.)

Mark Caplan said...

" because we can't"

That brought to mind Obama's campaign slogan "Yes we can!" And now, thanks to having read your blog for the past year, I see that "Yes we can!" has a gay alternative meaning (can being a euphemism for buttocks).

John Craig said...

Mark --
Ha! You're full of good puns today.

Anonymous said...

We've had this discussion a number of times.... But the problem with the word 'marriage' is that it has a definition that stood for thousands of years. My dictionary published in 1974 defines 'marry' as 'to join as husband and wife', and 'husband' as 'a married man', etc.

And yes, marriage has broader implications to social structure: it is the bedrock of the family, the most successful forum for reproduction and raising children. The fact that some male-female marriages bear no children due to infertility or even choice doesn't change the definition of marriage, or undermine its role in society.

I disagree that marriage is an 'equal right'. Gays can have a union with every legal right granted to married heterosexuals - and they can call that union anything they want, except marriage. A horse is not a donkey. There's nothing to do with 'rights' there.

To the point of your post.... At an athletic event several years ago there was a gay man who very aggressively approached both me and a younger teammate of mine, making us both feel uncomfortable (neither of us is gay). Despite both of our unwelcoming responses, the advances continued.

A friend of mine, also straight, lived in an apartment building when he was younger, and a gay man lived in another unit. My friend was hit on aggressively, and continuously, long after he clearly told the guy he was not gay and not interested.

- Ed

Steven said...

Sure but there are different ways of looking at someone. You can look at someone like you are planning on headbutting them and that's not exactly okay from a stranger or someone can look at you like you are a piece of meat ie they want to have sex with you, are barely containing it, and barely care what you think of it.

John Craig said...

Ed --
Most people I know seem to disagree with me about gay marriage. I know what the traditional definition has been, but I don't think that a couple of gays getting legally attached to each undermines anyone else's marriage. The only two people who can undermine my marriage are my wife and me, and my feeling is, if two gay guys or lesbians want to become legally obligated to each other somewhere else, that doesn't affect me in the least, so is fine with me.

I've been mistaken for one of the brethren many times in my life. If a gay guy comes on to me in a nonaggressive way, it honestly doesn't bother me. There's something about an aggressive gay guy which is really sickening though. Which makes me wonder sometimes if women don't feel the same way about aggressive men.

Mark Caplan said...

Ed wrote: "My dictionary published in 1974 defines 'marry'...."

Language is a social construct. Words mean what most people in a society think they mean, and that meaning is what dictionaries attempt to capture and record. As of today, the authoritative American Heritage Dictionary (available free online) defines marriage thus:

a. A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other, formerly restricted in the United States to a union between a woman and a man.

So, like countless other word meanings (awful once meant inspiring awe), what most people mean by marriage has changed.

According to Gallup and other polls, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Most people today actually agree with John Craig. I've never understood either how the gay married couple two doors away hurts my marriage.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Along those lines, and totally off the subject, I read recently that the Russian Tsar "Ivan the Terrible" suffers from similar mistranslation. Evidently, at the time, the Americans translated the Russian word as "terrible," when in fact the word was supposed to mean "formidable," which has positive connotations. I thought it was sorta interesting.

Anonymous said...

Gays don't look twice at me, because I have an endomorphic body, am a little overweight (but not much), and am a "grower" rather than a "shower" (i.e., my flaccid penis looks small). I was at the local 24 hour gym with a co-worker a few nights ago and we ran into a guy that has been a regular there for years. He's almost morbidly obese and has pronounced gynecomastia, and as soon as you talk to him you realize he's flamboyantly gay-think Paul Lynde or Truman Capote.

We're getting dressed and this guy is standing there watching. My co-worker, more a friendly acquaintance than a friend, is Tom-of-Finland caliber gay beefcake model material, although he's not only not gay, he's a bigtime evangelical Christian who swears he has never been with any woman other than his wife. This fat homosexual watching is standing there, mouth open, eyes glazed over, and his penis is rock hard. My co-worker acted oblivious , but I was as uncomfortable as I have ever been in a public place. We got out of there and my co-worker told me that he had to talk to the management about something, and went over and asked for the manager at the front desk.

This is about one AM, and the manager on duty is a woman. She is about 6'2" and is very muscular and mannish. He says that he has a probelm with someone in the locker room, and proceeds to tell her the story in surprisingly uninhibited terms.

She asks, "Did this person touch you or make any comments?"?

Well, no, he answered.

She then says that there is nothing she can do and that if he is sensitive about these matters, he should shower at home or upgrade his membership to the executive locker room, which features enclosed showers and dressing areas for those who value privacy. Then the kicker: "Here at (name of gym chain) we take these type of allegations very seriously, because if they indicate homophobia or racial prejudice, unsubstantiated allegations can lead to being asked to leave the facility. We are inclusive and will not tolerate prejudice on account of race, color, creed or sexual preference."

My sister later told me that this woman has a habit of visiting the women's locker when certain types of girls are there, and that she is well known as an out lesbian.
These people stick together.

Neither of us goes there anymore.

John Craig said...

Anon --
What's infuriating about that story is the hypocrisy of it. If women were ever in a situation where they were forced to get naked in front of leering men, the sky wold come falling down. But if men complain about that, it's their fault -- it's homophobia. And while that woman would never tolerate men going into the women's locker room to stare, she does the same thing herself. If transgenders are allowed to choose their locker room on the basis of discomfort, then heteros ought to be allowed to change apart from homos on the same basis.

Though, personally, I think the whole situation has gotten overblown, and men (whether they consider themselves trans or not) should change in men's locker rooms, and women in women's. And if there are leering queers like the one you described around, people should have the right to tell them they're disgusting -- just as a woman would tell a man in an equivalent situation.

Modern liberalism is all about whether you're a member of a favored "oppressed" group or not.

Anonymous said...

No, I think you've just met a weirdo at the Y-M-C-A. I wouldn't read his sexuality into it, although he may have some kind of sexual addiction.

John Craig said...

Anon --
You could be right, though this particular form of prissy self-satisfaction is something I've only seen in gays. But maybe it's just unbridled egotism combined with gay voice, and really not that much different other forms of egotism and entitlement. I don't know.

As far as your emphasis on the Y-M-C-A, suburban Y's are, in spirit, a far cry from the city Y's the Village People sang about.

Anonymous said...

Mark - thanks for pointing out the revised definition of marriage from your source. Count me among the troglodytes who disagree with it.

And yes, through relentless lobbying of the Left press, and the actions of a politically motivated judiciary, gay marriage has had a slightly greater than 50% approval in the US for about five years. Again, I'll stand with the majority opinion of humanity that stood for thousands of years of civilized society.

Why were the gays allowed to co-opt the word marriage? Why were civil unions and domestic partnerships, with all the legal rights of marriage, insufficient?

There is no right to gay marriage in the constitution. Whether you believe gay marriage is correct or not, as US citizens we should all be honor bound to support law rooted in the US constitution. A runaway judiciary is just one more reason so many people have lost faith in US governance.

The words of justice Scalia on the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling: “to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation .... Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court”

What has happened is a victory of Secularists over people of faith - in the name of magnanimously expanding the definition of marriage. What percentage of people practicing a religion, are following a religion that includes the union of gays under the word marriage?

And we have the resulting criminalization of faith. No matter what your religious beliefs, if you are a baker - you must bake a cake for a gay marriage and put a same sex couple figurine on it.

And please explain to me - what is so good about the redefinition of marriage, vs. the use of terms like civil union and domestic partnership, that makes this is all worthwhile?

I'll also argue that the utter nonsense that's going on with the gender confused being allowed to self-identify as male or female, no matter what their actual sex, and to use the bathroom, locker room or changing room of their choice, is collateral damage from the slippery slope of the gay marriage ruling.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
You just prompted me to read the Constitution:

As far as there being no right to gay marriage under the Constitution, there's actually no mention of ANY kind of marriage in there. So that argument doesn't really work. The Constitution is a brief read, which is its beauty. It's basically just about the structure of the US government, elections, and how power is to be allotted and exercised.

I realize that most people who read this blog disagree with me. And I couldn't agree with you more about cultural Marxism in general and all the lies that we're now supposed to pay lip service to about how the genders don't differ, about the races don't differ (except that whites are evil), and how noticing differences is "racist." However, I see gay marriage itself as a matter of equality under the law, which IS mentioned in the Declaration of Independence:

(The "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" bit.)

As far as all the other nonsense about trannies being allowed to use whichever changing room they prefer, I agree with you.

Anonymous said...

After all this time, I have a more specific / exact thought about the root problem with the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.

The problem is with the use of the word 'marriage' - which is defined in almost every major religion as the union between a man and a woman, as has been discussed above.

The First Amendment to the constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

The supreme court created a conflict between the freedom to practice religion and US law, because they ruled on the word 'marriage'.

If instead they had created a legal definition for male - female, male - male, and female - female unions, using any other word(s) than 'marriage' (civil union, domestic partnership, etc.) - the religious realm and the law could exist in harmony.

You want recognition from the government for your two person union? You get it through your legal civil union (or whatever wording.... ).

You want religious recognition for your marriage? You are going to have to find the religion that recognizes homosexual marriage to get that blessing. Otherwise you will have to settle for the government / legal union.

No conflict with the First Amendment. No conflict with religious expression.

We are entering a realm where churches are facing sanction for their beliefs. From a July 5 2016 Washington Times article:

"Two churches are fighting back against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission after the agency issued an interpretation of state law that could bar churches from expressing biblical views on sexuality and gender identity — even from the Sunday pulpit."

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
Actually this brings up another point about whether or not anybody has ever tried to have a gay marriage performed in a mosque. I'm pretty sure the answer is not, otherwise we'd have heard of it. But I have to wonder what the fallout would be if two people did, say, convert to Islam, and then try to have a gay marriage in a mosque. Would the New York Times lambaste the mosque for its narrow-mindedness in refusing to perform the ceremony? Would people protest outside the mosque? It'd make for an interesting situation.