h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Overall this is a helpful review, only blighted by the following, under point 1:

"The getting undressed bit is fine - the wooden panelled, clubby atmosphere of the men's changing rooms in the Turkish Bath area (called the Frigidarium) makes for a generally clean and comfortable 'taking your clothes off' experience. It also doesn't seem too, well, homosexually-threatening either."

Hmm, that last sentence makes it sound like gay men are by default 'not to be trusted'. If the author has issues and wants to reassure fellow insecure individuals leaving it at 'the taking off your clothes experience' being clean and comfortable, without that doggy last sentence, surely would have sufficed?

Interesting that, if this had been written by a female about males in a women's dressing room, there would almost certainly have been no problem about this comment.
That Poppiejay can feel assured of making this comment is surely instructive of how far the gay lobby has managed to manipulate the public forum, so that the 97% of males who are not gay are immediately invalidated if they make any comment that might seek to defend their right to personal space or privacy.
Gays want the right to publically parade their rights and difference when it suits them, and at the same time invoke the right to be considered exactly the same as all other males when it doesn't suit them to be seen as different. A case of wanting to have your cake and eat it twice if ever there was one.
The original comment in the Review would in fact be highly relevant an useful to anyone wanting to take a young male into the Baths; unfortunately the homosexual community has a high proportion with predatory tendencies, and this can be a serious problem as I have myself experienced with my young son at public swimming baths.

I think you may be confusing 'homosexuality' with 'paedophilia'.

Perhaps breaking down the divide between 'gay' and 'straight' would help towards dispelling the notion of homosexuality or bisexuality as being such a threat.

Nice try Poppiejay; it's good to try keep your head below the parapet when you know that it's going to get knocked off.
No confusion here, unless it's from the double standards propagated by the gay lobby.
Paedophillia is just as prevalent among hetrosexuals of course, but young (mostly) women are protected by the traditional separation of facilities for men and women, based on the obvious physical gender differences.
Male homosexuals operating in male heteroexual facilities have no distinguishing physical differences; they are like an opposite gender 'in disguise'. Hence the disquiet among heterosexuals with this situation.
The internet is packed with homosexual predators on young men, boasting that they are 'bum bandits' and the like.
'Breaking down the divide between gay and straight' is just another disingenious proposal of gay propaganda - you might as well ask to break down the divide between male and female. It's simply an attempt to make gay and straight equal, but, of course, with the gays more equal than others.
Homosexuals, if they want to be respected and taken seriously, should be prepared to stand up and be different and have their own separate facilities. Then we'll know who's who.

Colonelpreston, your remarks are offensive because they are clearly based on some quaint, antiquated theory that gay men are out to prey on, corrupt and taint the nation's youth.

Not true, utterly ridiculous and actually offensive.

It is a FACT that the vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual (so it's actually more prevalent among heterosexuals than homosexuals). It is also a FACT that the overwhelming majority of gay people are as repulsed by paedophilia, as the the overwhelming majority of straight people.

In your mind, the internet may be 'packed with homosexual predators on young men' - but the reality is a lot less twisted than that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The 'gay community', such as it is, wants nothing more than to get on and enjoy their lives. It's made up of people who have the same concerns as everyone else in the country: homes, loved ones, parents, siblings, money, crime, the NHS, etc. We don't sit round in groups discussing how to "tempt young people into our wicked ways" or whatever ... as if!

Your choice of words betrays your own prejudice. So I'll leave you with a thought: bigots, if they want to be respected and taken seriously, should be prepared to stand up and be counted. Then we'll know who's really who.

Either you don't know any gay people and it's a question of being scared of what you don't know, or you have had a bad experience with a nasty person and are now tarring everyone else with the same brush. Whatever the case, you really need to get to grips with your anger.

You're going to knock my block off? Lovely turn of phrase. You really sound like a very pleasant person.

That was of course directed at the 'colonel'.

Dear Liberator,
your reply is full of the usual heterphobic strategies.
1) dodging / not answering the main points of issue.
2) 'facts' which are anything but factual.
3) an astounding degree of self-centredness and an unability to comprehend any other point of view or interest other than that of the gay minority pressure group.
Can I make it very simple for you to reply in an unbigoted fashion which you seem to hold in such high esteem ?:
a) is it reasonable or not for a heterosexual person to be able to express discomfort/disquiet about having to share their personal space/ privacy in an unclothed state with someone who is homosexual and may therefore have a sexual interest in them?
b) does a hereosexual person have the same right to personal space/ privacy in relation to a homosexual person, as that which a female enjoys in relation to a male? And if not, why not?
c)is not the 'Fact' you quote (that the majority of paedophiles are heterosexual) meaningless if only 3% of the population are homosexual?
d)Is not the real issue in this respect : what PROPORTION of that group are paedophiles ?
e) and is it not amply evident that the proportion of paedophilia is higher in the homosexual popluation than in the heterosexual?
f) and lastly, why is it that homosexuals seem so determined to evangelise/ 'out' /promote /exhibit / and impose their sexuality onto heterosexuals?
regards, Colonelpreston

Dear Poppiejay - what a disingenious reply eh? : painting me as one possessed by dark irrational motives.
In reality of course, as you must surely have understood, 'getting your head knocked off' was a euphamistic phrase for losing the argument.
You have confirmed this by not answering any of my points, but instead trying a red herring of raising some imaginary psychologigcal past afflication that I must surely suffer from if I am not prepared to swallow hook line and sinker all the politically correct mumbo-jumbo which the gay lobby comes out with to justify special privilges that none of the rest of us enjoy.
If it do have anger, it is about biased hypocrisy, manipulation and self -interest, dressed up rights and social justice.

Strange thing Liberator,- when you state that the vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexuals, and that I'm a bigot , your posting stays on the website.
When I reply in language no different to your own from a heterosexual point of view, then my reply is removed 'for moderation'.
Since the way that the website works is, that a posting is only removed for moderation if a complaint is received, someone must have intended to have it removed. That's one way of dealing with an inability to answer something - simply shut the respondent up.
I have not made any complaint about anyone's posting; I wonder who has complained about mine, and what they're afraid of the rest of the forum seeing?
Let's see if they re-instate it,and if not, why not.....
Colonelpreston

Where exactly do we begin here?!

I didn't report your posting to the moderator. If I did, I would gladly admit it - but it wasn't me.

My replies aren't heterophobic. I have many friends, gay and straight, and I judge people by who they are and what they do and say, not by their sexuality. Unlike some people ...

In answer to your questions:
[a] Why on earth do you assume that all gay men would be interested in you sexually if they saw you, or indeed any straight man, in an unclothed state? Why do you think they would even want to look at you at all? Everything you say suggests you have a preconception that gay men spend their entire time in changing rooms staring at men's bodies, full of lust. They don't. Why do you think we'd even want to? If we did, we'd use gay saunas - that's what they're for - not somewhere like Ironmonger Row Turkish Baths.
[b] This is blatant scare-mongering, born of irrational paranoia. What exactly are you afraid of? If you don't want people to look at you, turn your back to them. Use a cubicle. But don't try and create 'enemies within' where there are none.
[c] No, it's not meaningless.
[d] I don't have the data to hand but, from what I know, it's the pretty much same.
[e] 'Amply evident' fron WHAT, exactly? The tabloid newspapers, who are happy to brand people paedophiles even when they aren't? Your question belies your prejudice.
[f] Another distortion of the truth. Lesbians and gay men aren't out to impose their sexuality on to anyone. This is yet another right-wing conspiracy theory fuelled by a desire to divide, rather than unite people. There was never any reference, even in the original report, about 'imposing sexuality' on to anyone - you are the person who has chosen to misinterpret those words and turn them into crazy theories about gay men laying in wait for poor innocents.

I'm assuming you have never even been to Ironmonger Row Turkish Baths. I am a regular there and I have news for you: it's populated by a mixture of men: black and white, straight and gay, young and old, able-bodied and disabled ... And you know what? EVERYBODY GETS ALONG JUST FINE. Why wouldn't they?

So maybe it's not a place for you ...

colonelpreston: "If it do have anger, it is about biased hypocrisy, manipulation and self -interest, dressed up rights and social justice. "

I can assure you that there is no self-interest on my part. I am a female with no axe to grind other than finding prejudice and irrational fear to be unattractive qualities.

When I first read the description of the Ironmonger Row baths I was struck by the phrase 'homosexually threatening'. There seemed to be a presumption of homosexuality as something to be feared which I disagree with.

Should your son turn out to be gay, surely you would do him a greater service to encourage him to see himself as a valuable and respected member of society than as some kind of predatory freak?

Dear Poppiejay - thank you for your frankness in declaring yourself.
To put this discussion in perspective, can I ask you to consider something?: whether you (and other females you know), are quite happy to be expected to share their changing space where they are undressed with unknown naked males?
If you (and they) have no disquiet about this, then it would be understandable for you to imagine that the phrase used in the review might come from the presumption that homosexuality was 'something to be feared'.
If, on the other hand, you ( and other females you know), might not be entirely happy about having to share their privacy in such a way, then, you are in just exactly the same space as the male who wrote the review.
Usually it is normal practice for females to have privacy and separation from males,not because they are 'in fear of them', but because some males may not be interested in simply dressing and undressing, but might have a sexual interest in them as well. Females are thereby protected from unwanted and annoying sexual attention.
This is exactly the same situation for heterosexual men in relation to homosexual men, who are in fact in 'gender disguise'.
Females can find this difficult to take on board, because homosexual men are not threatening to them, and they can often in fact feel more at ease with homosexual men than they are with heterosexual men.
There is not an exact equivalent with sharing space with lesbian women, because the male homosexual can be far more predatory and aggressive in their approach, as I found out with my young son in the swimming baths changing rooms.
What I am annoyed about here, is the amazingly dismissive and self-centred approach by the gay lobby who are on a roll with their gay rights 'victories' and like to continually cast themselves as 'victims', but are so used to doing this that their attitude towards the natural concerns of the ( vast majority) of males who are not gay is to portray the heterosexual's rights to privacy and personal space dismissivally or attempt to invalidate them as 'outdated', 'bigoted', scaremongering, or whatever politically-correct buzzword they think might work, in order, as I have said before, to have their cake and eat it twice.
This is about fairness and respect for heterosexuals from gays; you might imagine that, have seen themselves victims and suffering such a raw deal from society in the past, that they would be keen to the sensitivities and needs of others; not much evidence of that here, or anywhere else, from the gay lobby though that I can see I'm afraid.
To my mind therefore, the reviewer was quite right to put potential users of Ironmonger Row at ease, by telling them that there were no such concerns at this establishment.
If the gay lobby don't like this, then they only have themselves, their self-obsessiveness, and the behaviour of some of their fraternity to blame.
I hope this explains my position.
Regards,and thank you for sharing your views.

Dear colonelpreston, I'm sorry to hear that your son was on the receiving end of unwanted attention. As a female and ex-child, I'm well aware of how upsetting that can be.

I think had the author of the article found some way of expressing the fact that it felt like a safe environment, free of any sexually predatory behaviour I would not have felt the need to comment. It's the phrase "homosexually threatening' that made me feel uncomfortable. I'm against ANY sexually threatening behaviour!

I realise this has a lot to do with context, and that I could be accused of 'political correctness gone mad'. But I feel protective towards all vulnerable beings, both young people being harassed by sexual predators and young people coming to terms with being gay in a predominantly heterosexual world.

With best wishes to you and your family

Where do you begin Liberator??
- Well,you could make a start by treating others as you expect to be treated yourself.
That means dropping all the psycho babble mumbo-jumbo, 'right wing' theories,and persecuted victim story ; become for a moment that 'un-bigoted' person that you look upon others to be; Get rid of the gay lobby tunnel vision, and start to see things from the point of view of a heterosexual person.`
Other readers of this forum may well be able to notice that, in responding to my simple questions a) to f) you often seem to find it very difficult to give a sraightforward answer.
For instance, why is it so difficult for you to give an answer to my simple question :
b)- does a heterosexual person have the same right to personal space / privacy in relation to a homosexual person, as that which a female enjoys to a male? And, if not, why not?
Your non-answer is that this is : 'scare-mongering, irrational paranoia' etc.
You actually know full well that you can't answer this question without exposing an impasse of hypocrisy at the heart of current 'gay liberation', where gays now expect a priori to have rights on areas of heterosexual privacy/ personal space which are proscribed for good reason in other forms of gender contact.
Historically this was crudely dealt with by simply banning homosexuality as illegal.
But of course gay people should and must have the right to their sexuality and freedom from persecution; However that also entails RESPONSIBILITIES, which means considering the rights of others to their privacy/ personal space/and freedom from unwanted sexual attention.
This may be difficult to resolve, but it certainly will not be helped by a reactionary branding any heterosexuals who raise these matters as 'irrational bigots', 'right wing','reactionary', 'out dated', 'homophobic' etc ad infinitum. This kind of hysterical mud-slinging simply gives the game away of the absence of any rational answer on your part, and worse, the inability to give others the consideration that you expect and demand for yourself.
Many of the vast majority of people ( 97% are heterosexual)are now coming to experience the whole 'gay rights' campaign as increasingly a pain in the neck, self-obsessed, indulgent, amd self-centred; No matter what accomodations and understanding is given, still more is demanded; and precious little understanding or consideration given in return.
The freedoms won have often been and are being abused, and the concept of 'restraint' appearing a notion completely unknown in many instances.
- Surely a case of the tail wagging the dog if ever there was one.
Dear Liberator, liberation does not mean the right to do your thing all over anyone else.

Colonelpreston, clearly you have had a traumatic experience with your son in a communal changing area. Regardless of where and when this happned, it's clearly upsetting and, more to the point, not on. I would hope you raised this with the individual involved and also with the management of the establishment, as they are responsible for what happened. I would fully support you in this - as would every other gay man I know.

Regrettably, however, you seem to have imposed this experience on to all gay men and all communal changing areas and are asking questions which are, whether you admit it or not, inflammatory. Of course, everyone, straight or gay, has a right to privacy in a communal changing area. As I said previously, if you have concerns, use a cubicle or a towel, or turn your back (I notice you did not respond to this suggestion). But your question presupposes that EVERY gay man is out to 'prey on' EVERY straight man - which is an absolute nonsense.

I appreciate that the experience you cite has been distressing for you and your family, but there is a real lack of logic in the argument you are making here. Where, exactly, has the 'gay lobby' ever demanded rights linked to communal changing areas? Indeed, why would they bother? Communal changing areas are a part of life and any recent changes to the law regarding 'gay rights' (for want of a better expression) have absolutely nothing to do with them. They're about issues like inheritance, next of kin - stuff like that. They're certainly not aimed at sanctioning unwanted sexual attention or "doing your thing over everyone else". Where do you get that from?

If the 'gay lobby' appear 'self-centred', it's because of years of abuse and prejudice gay people have had to endure. You could easily make the same charge of other groups representing 'minorities'. But, as with your previous posts, you provide no evidence for the arguments you make ("The freedoms won have often been and are being abused, and the concept of 'restraint' appearing a notion completely unknown in many instances"). And of course, your insistence on linking homosexuality with paedophilia. Again, it would appear that the upsetting time you've had has fuelled theories that don't actually make sense and, additionally, do nothing to resolve the problem that started it.

I have to add that the assumptions you seem to make about me personally are so clouded with your preconceptions that they are massively wide of the mark. I am not part of the 'gay lobby': I actually think the changes in the law have been driven more by money than the 'gay lobby' (who I don't have all that much time for). And my name on here isn't a reference to 'gay liberation' - it's a reference to BLAKE'S 7.

Like poppiejay, I hope you can move on from the unpleasant episode you've had and wish you all the best in doing so.

Having gone from being quaint, antiquated, bigoted, scaremongering, irrational, rightwing, and crazy, - to having your full support on one matter, I feel that I might just be beginning, dear Liberator, to be seen no longer as a part of the Federation. That is surely progress indeed (!)
Can I attempt to go a bit further, and get you to embrace something that you seem very shy and averse to handling ? :
You have acknowledged that everyone , straight or gay, has the right to privacy - however, you still seem seem to shy away from the rest of my question that asks you if this right is the same that a female has in relation to a male, and if not why not?
The reason for your reticence surely is, - and this is the nub of a disquiet felt by heterosexuals in mixing with gays - that you know full well that hetrosexuals have no way of knowing who is gay, and who is not.
Advances in gay rights, where homosexuality is no longer illegal and is socially accepted, have left heterosexuals in a situation where they are effectively mixing with a different gender 'in disguise', who are emboldened to assert themselves whenever they feel like it, or remain covert when they don't. This is not a level playing field, and is what I mean when I say that gays assume themselves to have an a priori right on areas of heterosexual privacy; and your reluctance to address this I submit, shows that you are in fact aware that this is the case. 'Holding a towel' as you tamely suggest simply does not address this issue,and you know full well that gay rights campaigners have never needed to 'demand rights to communal changing areas' - they already got them by default as soon as homosexuality was legalised.
Can I state that I certainly do not hold , - as you keep asserting I am saying, that all gay men are predators - but, I'm afraid some ( as with heterosexuals) are.
Females would not tolerate this situation with males; - Imagine a Mrs Doubtfire suddenly unmasking herself in the women's and girl's changing area - there would be outrage, and quite rightly so.
However, for some reason, you feel unable or unwilling to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of heterosexual men; and, until this is addressed, you will continue to get reviews like the one that started this forum thread.
Gays surely should have a way of publically displaying who they are?
And this is what I don't understand about gay 'rights' - there are gay pride marches, demos, 'outing' campaigns, and endless beating the drum about being 'who they are' but, when it comes down to situations where heterosexuals are at a disadvantage, gays want to remain covert, and anonymous. This surely is wanting 'rights' without responsibility?
In some countries gays dress in a certain way, or wear a certain type of jewellry to make their sexuality clear. That can be one way of addressing the issue.
And, really, to properly address the needs of heterosexuals, there should be separate changing facilities; which, as I said originally, means that gays would have to stand up and publically acknowledge their sexuality so that we know who's who. Or are the gay pride marchers suddenly wilting violets?
And that brings me to your disingenious attempts to portray homosexuals as such a nice bunch, 'every other gay man I know' etc, horrified by paedophilia, and still playing the 'poor victims of abuse and prejudice' card. And wondering where on earth can I have got those ideas of 'freedoms won being abused', and the 'concept of restraint being unknown'?
So Liberator, how many campaigns by heterosexuals for cottaging rights in public toilets can you name?
And how many hetrosexuals are demanding that Park management do not prune the shrubbery this year in order that they can shag each other in public recreational space?- to mention just two obvious instances of gays wanting to be 'more equal' than others.
Gays are like all other people; some are good, some are not; some given an inch, will take a yard. It's human nature.
One thing's sure, until they are prepared to stand up and be counted, they are not taking responsibility for their sexuality, and they will not get the respect that they rightly want and should have.
Let's hope we can all work towards that.

Let's get one thing clear: I NEVER said I was unsupportive of your concern about the situation you experienced. You only revealed more detail of it in a recent post, which explained a little more why you were so upset. That's what I responded to.

If I haven't "embraced" all the points you have made, it's because I would dispute the premise you make in the first place. "Advances in gay rights, where homosexuality is no longer illegal and is socially accepted, have left heterosexuals in a situation where they are effectively mixing with a different gender 'in disguise', who are emboldened to assert themselves whenever they feel like it, or remain covert when they don't." Sorry - but that is plain silly. Regardless of what the law are/were, men or women entering a communal changing area would never know people's sexuality. Why would recent changes in the law make this any different? Nobody is any more "in disguise" than they were one hundred years ago. I'm sorry if you feel you are "at a disadvantage" but this scenario you talk about is one in your mind. The ghosts you imagine simply aren't there. It's a shame you feel this way, but clearly there is nothing to be done about it.

You say "the nub of a disquiet felt by heterosexuals in mixing with gays - that you know full well that hetrosexuals have no way of knowing who is gay, and who is not." What disquiet? Again, it would appear you are imposing your recent unfortunate experience onto a wider scenario - and, however distressing it was for you, the two just don't go together.

The reason there are 'gay pride' demonstrations is, historically, linked to prejudice shown towards gay people. There may be less of this now than there used to be, but it is still a problem. As for all the stuff you write about cottaging rights and bushes in parks: I don't know what this is a reference to. It sounds like rubbish out of the Daily Mail.

And as for the separate changing areas and ID jewellery: what next? Separate buses? Separate towns? A separate country?

You've clearly had a bad time of it lately, and I hope things improve for you.

This post has been removed.

Dear Liberator - you should surely adopt a paraphrase of the Blake 7's motto : 'I plan to evade forever or die trying' and change your name to 'Procrastinator'?
Anyway, what is in evidence is definatley not the famous Blake spirit I fear.

The point is simple : are you prepared to understand the concerns of others or not? Or are you in a world of monovision endlessly evading the point?
That is what started the thread on this forum.

If I raise points, they are, as far as you are concerned simply 'plain silly', 'ghosts you imagine', 'rubbish out of the Daily Mail' etc., quite apart from all the epithets you cheerfully throw at someone who dares to question the politically-correct status quo that you are so fond of, while at the same time seeing no contradiction in calling upon the help of emotional blackmail by citing 'persecution', 'victimhood', 'bigotryand all the standard mantra.
You know full well that 'gender disguise' is now an issue where it wasn't before precisely because of gay liberation; when homosexuality was illegal, hardly anyone would dare declare themselves gay,-especially in a public communal area. Now ,however, gay people feel, quite understandably, emboldened to assert themselves in these communal areas.
But, what you can't seem to get round to understanding Liberator,
(or don't want to understand) is how that leaves the (97%) of other males in those changing rooms who are not gay. This is especially a problem with young vulnerable boys mixing with other males who may have a sexual interest in them, and you are being plainly disingenious in trying to make out that it is not.
A gay male in a changing room is potentially no different than a man in a women's changing room. Women would not tolerate this; why should men have to?

You are quite right that nobody is more 'in disguise' now than they were 100 years ago, but what has changed is, that they can now act upon their difference in sexuality, whereas before the fear of the law prevented them from doing so.
It is right that that law was changed, but this has left an imbalance in personal privacy that was not there before; the law was crude in it's protection and not totally effective, but it was a deterrant to unwanted sexual attention.
You need to recognise this, and take responsibility by having separate changing facilities; failure to do this will perpetuate the disquiet which you simply dismiss as non-existant, - but which in fact plainly does although you seem unable to recognise it, otherwise this forum thread would not have started in the first place.
You seriously think that all that stuff about 'cottaging etc' is rubbish from the Daily Mail?
All this information is in fact graphically available on the following ( a bit too graphically for this forum which had to suspend my posting because the descriptions are so explicit):

From PETER TATCHELL :
Sexual Offences Bill - October – on sex in public places / sexual behaviour in public toilets.
From PINK NEWS
On ; 'the risky approach to anonymous sex'.
From PINK NEWS
On 'Cruising'.
From PINK NEWS
On Cottaging : The cottaging website Squirt.org has just under three times as much traffic as PinkNews.co.uk, the largest gay news website in Europe.
Several of Squirt's most recommended daytime hot spots are decidedly public; the toilets of several supermarket chains on Saturday mornings, library toilets, and even the toilets in the minor injury's unit of a hospital.
One cottaging site is reputedly in the British Library; The press office spokesman of which was shocked by the news, as who wouldn't be; "I'm blushing! Gosh, how embarrassing, really? It's news to me."
From : ITCHY LONDON
'How to go about getting into cottaging' ( with plenty of info).

And your (Liberator's)'s quotes:
"doing your thing over everyone else". ( Colonelpreston) Where do you get that from?
'it would appear ( Colonelpreston) you are imposing your recent unfortunate experience onto a wider scenario - and, however distressing it was for you, the two just don't go together'.

You want to be equal Liberator, but some to be more equal than others eh?

Please do get off it, and join the rest of us and make the world a fairer more considerate place for all.
Colonelpreston