OK we get it STUD, you're straight - page 9

by bigrigcowboy

Something has been bothering me for quite some time on this forum and I have not known exactly what it was. Well I figured it out and y'all may not like it. So often when reading posts on the Men in Nursing or Male Nursing... Read More


  1. 0
    Oh, I haven't noticed that in the OR, maybe I just don't even think about it though cuz it really is not relevant.
    Patient's get the same level of care whether we are male or female..
    I think in the OR the male nurses are respected a bit more, and it is certainly nice working with a staffing mix rather than
    all female.

    Cheers
  2. 0
    A patient in the OR or ED is in a completely different state of mind than one in L&D, Ortho, peds, etc. Very seldom will a nurse of any gender be alone for any length of time with an OR or ED patient. While in school I was warned by a couple of my instructors, as well as clinical instructors, and floor nurses to CYA. They said as quick as people are to sue make sure I am always 100% covered, that there is no sense of inpropriety, even if I have to get a female nurse to accompany me with certain procedures. I have noticed often times the family is bothered more by my being male than the patient is.
  3. 0
    Had and experience tonight where I failed to respect female modesty. I didn't leave the room while the pt removed her bra, she thought I was being "pervy" for whatever that's worth.

    I could have just as easily provided her with warm blankets, let her know to ring the call bell when she was ready to be assessed, and taken her needs into account.

    Being a murse is a little different. I'm still learning the ropes, but I think there's more to it than just assuming that female patients automatically look at me and see RN... sometimes they just see Boy.
  4. 0
    I just started working as a STNA in a nursing home a few weeks ago, and it's interesting being a guy. Some people are completely fine with my, but I'll still walk in to rooms and they are shocked to see a guy. I've been told by some residents that I'll make a great nurse, and then I've also been told that I'll be a horrible nurse and won't make it through nursing school simply because I'm a guy. The other STNA's (all women) get furious when the residents say that, but I think it's just something that I've come to accept already. There is a stereotype that guys aren't going to make good nurses, which is sad. It's understandable for the elderly and older adults because they never experienced male nurses, but to have such prejudice in this era is a shame.

    On the subject of this forum post, we have a gay STNA at work, and he is by far the best worker there that I have seen, and many other nurses and STNA's have said that about him. I think that if he worked first or second shift, and had to interact with the families, though, it'd be a little harder. No matter how good of a worker he is, if they found out that he was gay, they would probably not want him working with their family. No one on first shift has realized yet that I'm gay, and in a way I'm kind of happy about that. I don't want the residents or their families to treat me any different. I know the staff would accept me, but I wish something like who I love wouldn't change how the people I take care of feel about me. I think as time goes on, and the people of my generation are in nursing homes, there will not be nearly as much prejudice towards both gay nurses and male nurses in general.
  5. 0
    Quote from BOXRLUVR
    Why is there a male nurse forum anyway?
    We are all nurses.. just like you guys are saying...
    Not exactly. Despite what the strongest desires of the 60s-70s generations aspired to, there are real, fundamental differences in the way men and women think, feel, and process life in general. Much of this is genetic/hormonal, and clearly there is a reasonable spread of personality "type", i.e., introspective, extroverted, con/lib, homo/hetero, etc., but there are valid generalizations that may be made about both genders.

    In the context of this thread, if it healthy and accepted for homosexual expression, why would it be unhealthy or unacceptable to have male, hetero expression.

    There is absolute truth in the statement that, "familiarity breeds contempt." Without some measure of social reserve, vis-a-vis male/female, etc.,etc., it is far too easy to dehumanzie others. As previously noted, there is no requirement to accept everyone and everything.

    I have a large number of family members who are gay/lesbian. Frankly, most of the problems they have experienced have been related to the politicization of the gay lifestyle.

    If you've been to SF during Gay Pride week, you know where I'm coming from- it isn't about homosexuality, its about sexual extremism in every form. Sorry, again, this is no more "healthy" nor "acceptable" than child sacrifice. For society to exist, there must be some surrender of personal "freedom" and adhesion to a social norm(s). Extreme hedonism does not allow for social cohesion, as there can be no "wrong" and the most violent/subjugating personalities rise to dominate, and the society loses its identity.

    Did/do things need to change in social acceptance? Personally, I say a qualified "yes". Qualified in that some real measures of sexual restraint need to be espoused by the gay community, and they need to rabidly divorce themselves from NAMBLA, the water-sports/S&M crew, the bed-hoppers, etc.. Heteros have these proclivities too, but you don't see those folks making political statements for the "average family of 4" on MSNBC, wearing a genital cuff & peeing from a second floor window.

    As it stands, it would be akin to having Deuce Bigalo, Male Giggalo acting as the political spokesman for hetero males.
  6. 0
    This thread brings me to ask what you all think of the new California law that will require public schools to make sure that achievements made by gay or lesbian or transgender people are taught and the lesson includes their sexual preference. (I haven't read the bill, but I believe it was signed into law very recently by the retread Gov. Brown).

    My immediate thoughts on this ran thusly:

    The achievement is going to be overshadowed by their sexuality.
    Those who are homophobic won't get beyond that.
    Those who are gay and really proud won't get beyond that.

    Will achievements by straight people (and then break that down by married or single) also be noted?

    What do you all think of this? I plan to ask my lesbian daughter about it, but just haven't yet.

    Thanks.
  7. 1
    " 'Political Correctness' is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
    R. J. Wiedemann LtCol. USMC Ret.


    Yeah. Here's the problem- sexual orientation is either 1) a choice, or 2) biological variance. (Edit: operant conditioning falls in here as well)

    If it is a choice, it falls under moral/social paradigms. No one has to like, accept or acknowledge you. Just like 99% of the rest of the populace.

    If it is genetic variance, it is self-limiting, and we are artificially sustaining a genetic outlier, with unforseen consequences. An inability to reproduce is pretty much an evolutionary dead-end. Ergo, as nature does not support reproduction in this subset, some therapy to correct the problem may/should be possible.

    Gets kinda sticky, doesn't it?

    Functional homosexuality is only possible on a large scale when supported by an advanced society ("First World" of any given era) that is willing to support the behavior financially, and politically. Now, a completely homosexual society cannot exist, unless they are 1) capturing children(or culling them from the "breeders" in the society) and new mates for the newbies on a recurring basis, or 2) have some intercourse ritual (ala Sparta and a couple of other Greek states). Without this, there are no ensuing generations to care for the elders.

    At their pinnacle's numerous societies have had devoutly homosexual leadership. They don't typically last long, and appear at the end of a society's lifespan. Equally, using Sparta as an example, bisexuality, subordinate to homosexuality, works to a limited extent as long as the populations are relatively genetically close and not exposed to foreign pathogens.

    IIRC, syphillis is the classic example. It appears to have been endemic to several tribes that European explorers encountered. The tribes had immunity, the Euros did not. In turn, when contracted by the Euros, the pathogen mutated, and then became the gift that gave to everyone.

    Fundamentally, I look at the issue this way: if I decide to buy a maxed out Hummer, Off-road God Chariot, my insurance is going to be about 10 times what it is on my S10 pickup- which is somewhat higher than the insurance on a VW sedan. Choices have costs. Should I have the right to force you to pay the cost of my lifestyle, be it insurance, public assistance, or disability...? I am of the camp that believes you get what you earn, and if you can't afford/don't like the consequences, you need to closely evaluate your decision making framework.

    I personally do not care overly much about individuals' choices, but, please, do not try to mainstream/justify those choices in a logical vacuum, based on "feeling".
    GM2RN likes this.
  8. 2
    This is an extreme example, but true none-the-less. The arguements that homosexuals use to defend their actions are the same exact arguements that pedophiles use to defend their actions, "We were born this way." If this statement is true then why should one action be accepted as normal behavior and the other as a criminal act? If they are both "born this way" how can society condemn someone for the way they were born? Because the pedophile acted on his/her feelings? Should they be allowed to act if it is in their nature to be a certain way? People seem to often forget one of the main things that seperates us humans from the others of the animal kingdom is our ability to think rationally. I hear people stating that other mammals act in a homosexually fashion. I know that often the mother of many mammels will kill her offspring if they are not viable at birth. Does this mean we need to discontinue all Neo-Natal ICU's because other mammals would not try to save their young?

    Do I care if someone is gay? No. Do I want to hear about it? No. Does marching in the streets make your lifestyle more acceptable? No. It may change laws but does nothing to make it acceptable to the rest of the human race.
    Conqueror+ and GM2RN like this.
  9. 2
    Quote from cpl_dvldog
    This is an extreme example, but true none-the-less. The arguements that homosexuals use to defend their actions are the same exact arguements that pedophiles use to defend their actions, "We were born this way." If this statement is true then why should one action be accepted as normal behavior and the other as a criminal act? If they are both "born this way" how can society condemn someone for the way they were born? Because the pedophile acted on his/her feelings? Should they be allowed to act if it is in their nature to be a certain way?
    WOW. That is certainly an extreme, and offensive, analogy.

    Big difference in 1 sentence:

    Gays form relationships & have consenual sex with other like minded individuals; pedophiles prey upon & victimize those who who don't have the legal or developmental capacity to consent.

    Make sense?
    VanLpn and cjar107013 like this.
  10. 1
    Quote from MrChicagoRN
    WOW. That is certainly an extreme, and offensive, analogy.

    Big difference in 1 sentence:

    Gays form relationships & have consenual sex with other like minded individuals; pedophiles prey upon & victimize those who who don't have the legal or developmental capacity to consent.

    Make sense?
    My point isn't what each group is doing. My point is each group's rational for their actions.

    Make sense?
    GM2RN likes this.


Top