Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
'I may be straight, but I'm not narrow'
The live feed from today's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hearing just ended. The curious can watch it here. (Warning, this thing went on forever: 2h35.)
The hearing went better than I expected, insofar as the Democratic witnesses, Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, and Marine Staff Serg. Eric Alva utterly outspoke Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones and Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, both of whom testitified (poorly, and in some places, damn near incoherently) on behalf of Republicans.
Donnelly managed, somehow, to answer every question from both the right and the left with, "Sexual urges would prevent unit cohesion." Jones, when asked whether or not he thought homosexuality was immoral, replied, "No, but if I'm 6'8" and I want to be a fighter pilot, I can't." Both think a gay-friendly military would bring on the end of the world.
As this hearing evidenced, the social conservative arguments for preserving DADT, letting the Department of Defense write its own policy, or banning gay service, range from paper-thin to non-existent. The only obstacle I see to passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act—the bill that would repeal DADT and implement a non-discrimination policy—is good ole' fashion homophobia.
Hopefully the 111th Congress makes repealing DADT a top priority, so that our military can get back to risking the lives of straights and gays in pointless wars.
John Cloud at Time.com wrote a great recap of the policy, and ended with this:
Do we want a military where Americans are not forced to lie about their most important emotional bonds?
I wrote about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" here.
Fluffy|7.23.08 @ 5:10PM|#
If sexual urges would damage unit cohesion, isn't the presence of women in the armed forces 20 times as bad as the presence of homosexuals? [Assuming that there are 20 times as many straights as gays in the military overall.]
lunchstealer|7.23.08 @ 5:15PM|#
"No, but if I'm 6'8" and I want to be a fighter pilot, I
can't."
When they make an airplane where the cockpit (ahem) can accomodate
a heterosexual pilot but not a homosexual pilot, this will cease to
be the third stupidest analogy ever.
Episiarch|7.23.08 @ 5:21PM|#
So if this passes, when the drill Sergeant says "I'll bet you're the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around! I'll be watching you!", he may actually be correct.
|7.23.08 @ 5:27PM|#
so that our military can get back to risking the lives of
straights and gays in pointless wars.
A not so minor quibble. The military has not been risking those
young American lives in pointless wars. The government has in Iraq.
With bi-partisan support.
I also don't concede Afghanistan is pointless.
|7.23.08 @ 5:35PM|#
"The curious can watch it here. (Warning, this thing went on
forever: 2h35.)"
Is there a different link for the bi-curious?
Other Matt|7.23.08 @ 5:37PM|#
When they make an airplane where the cockpit (ahem) can
accomodate a heterosexual pilot but not a homosexual pilot, this
will cease to be the third stupidest analogy ever.
Depends. If homosexuality is an innate trait such as height, it's
indicating that there are innate factors which preclude service so
it's perhaps the seventh or eighth stupidist analogy.
I can throw in my $0.02 as a prior military officer and military
academy grad that the concept of "don't ask/don't tell", as well as
the entire prohibition on homosexuals serving in the military, is
completely stupid and unnecessary. "Conduct unbecoming" would cover
a guy walking through the base with assless chaps, if that's a
concern.
Other Matt|7.23.08 @ 5:39PM|#
A not so minor quibble. The military has not been risking
those young American lives in pointless wars. The government has in
Iraq. With bi-partisan support.
Good point, but it is the military establishment that has been the
primary force behind the continued stupidity concerning
homosexuality and military service. So, while congress has perhaps
been the source of them being placed in danger, the military
establishment is the force behind the disproportionate amount of
heterosexuals put in danger.
|7.23.08 @ 5:40PM|#
An active duty soldier (a sergeant) told me his objection: "We have group showers in the Amry. It would be just as uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the female troops had to shower with straight men."
|7.23.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Matthew | July 23, 2008, 5:40pm | #
And how is this a libertarian issue, Mike?
How is it not?
|7.23.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Episiarch | July 23, 2008, 5:21pm | #
"So if this passes, when the drill Sergeant says "I'll bet you're
the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even
have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around! I'll
be watching you!", he may actually be correct."
LMAO... Ahh, you made my day Epi.
Kolohe|7.23.08 @ 6:20PM|#
If sexual urges would damage unit cohesion, isn't the
presence of women in the armed forces 20 times as bad as the
presence of homosexuals?
I said this on the previous thread. Donnelly has essentially been
making this very argument for nearly twenty years now.
|7.23.08 @ 6:21PM|#
"We have group showers in the Amry. It would be just as
uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body
over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the
female troops had to shower with straight men."
For all that Soldier knows, the "buddy" next to him IS ALREADY
salaciously looking at him whilst showering. There ARE gay and
bisexual Soldiers in the military...it's a fact of life (and they
tend to be overrepresented in the female Officer Corps, but I
digress...)
Also, that sergeant is flattering himself a bit much, isn't he?
Just because said Sergeant is a dude doesn't mean he's an
attractive dude. Nor is the gay guy going to try to rape him or
jump him in the shower.
Jennifer|7.23.08 @ 6:28PM|#
An active duty soldier (a sergeant) told me his objection:
"We have group showers in the Amry. It would be just as
uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body
over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the
female troops had to shower with straight men."
So if his concern is that someone might look at him and be turned
on, there's two conclusions to reach: 1) The guy has a high opinion
concerning the amount of lust the sight of his naked body would
inspire in anyone prone to enjoying sex with men; and 2) he'd have
no problem showering in the presence of butch lesbians.
Tell Sergeant Hottie that, while it is indeed annoying to have guys
hit on you when you're not interested in them, I've been dealing
with that since I was thirteen and if I could handle the stress of
that PLUS algebra class PLUS my unrequited lust for Duran Duran,
I'm sure today's macho soldiers are also strong enough to deal with
it.
Elemenope|7.23.08 @ 6:56PM|#
it's a fact of life (and they tend to be overrepresented in
the female Officer Corps, but I digress...)
Is there a crime in the UCMJ called "failing miserably to
fraternize with a superior officer" or is there a story behind
this?
Paul|7.23.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Personally, I kind of subscribe to the
'Gays too Precious to Risk' policy.
Tell Sergeant Hottie that, while it is indeed annoying to have
guys hit on you when you're not interested in them, I've been
dealing with that since I was thirteen and if I could handle the
stress of that PLUS algebra class PLUS my unrequited lust for Duran
Duran
Sing it, sister. I hear ya.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:02PM|#
unrequited lust for Duran Duran
But seriously...admit it, Jennifer. You lusted after Duran Duran
precisely because they were sexually non-threatening.
|7.23.08 @ 7:03PM|#
Elemenope - it's probably a cliche that there are bunch of
lesbos in the Army for a reason: it tends to be true, to a certain
extent. It seemed to come to a point where a surprisingly high
number of female officers (MAJ and above) I met were either
"well-known closet cases" or pretty much out. I actually met a
major whose female partner used to follow her from duty station to
duty station...everyone knew it and no one gave a shit.
There are obvious reasons: to attain rank in a "man's Army" you
pretty much have to be able to "keep up with the boys"...and the
"more butch and manly" of lesbians were able to do that. Also, the
whole "no kids and family" thing helps.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:07PM|#
I actually met a major whose female partner used to follow
her from duty station to duty station...everyone knew it and no one
gave a shit.
In polite circles she would be referred to as a "travelling
companion".
|7.23.08 @ 7:09PM|#
"Hopefully the 111th Congress makes repealing DADT a top
priority....."?????????????
This plea does not trouble anybody?
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:10PM|#
This plea does not trouble anybody?
No, Congress troubles me, not any particular plea.
|7.23.08 @ 7:16PM|#
In polite circles she would be referred to as a "travelling
companion".
I did not know this. A Soldier is generally at a Duty Station for
three years, so I am not sure that traveling companion is the
appropriate euphemism. Perhaps "platonic homemaker"?
libertymike - what is so disturbing about said plea? It would take
Congress about five minutes to do it, so it's not like they can't
get right back to screwing us all over
Ben|7.23.08 @ 7:16PM|#
Jennifer--How many of those guys who you were fending off since
age 13 were ogling you while you showered?
I think gays should be allowed in the military at all levels, but
I'm not going to blame that guy for not wanting to be ogled while
he showers. Throw me (a straight male) into showers with females
and you better believe I would be ogling the shit out of them.
|7.23.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Paul-
As a general rule, libertarians do not want Congress to get busy,
right? To the extent that there is a libertarian case for Congress
getting busy, I submit that DADT repeal would not be a "top
priority".
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Libertymike, I was being facetious. No, DADT is not a top
priority.
However, having learned a thing or three in this here
forty....mmm....years of life... keeping Congress distracted with
shiny things such as baseball steroid use investigations tends to
keep real damage from occurring.
|7.23.08 @ 7:25PM|#
"For all that Soldier knows, the "buddy" next to him IS ALREADY
salaciously looking at him whilst showering. There ARE gay and
bisexual Soldiers in the military"
But there's a huge difference between knowing that someone in your
unit somewhere might be gay and knowing that a particular
individual IS gay. Whether or not I think he wants me, I would
(justifiably) be pretty damn uncomfortable showering with a gay
man. I doubt ANYONE who's actually served in a ground combat unit
doesn't buy the unit cohesion argument.
Along those lines, the only reason homosexuality in the military is
a problem is because of the (extreme) discomfort it can cause among
straight people in certain situations. Thus, (and I hate to praise
Clinton, but) the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is actually the
best way for all sides to deal with the issue.
|7.23.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Ayn Randian-
See my post to Paul.
Yes, of course, there is no reason to have DADT and Congress shuld
repeal it. My point is that there are far more important rules,
regulations and laws that need to be repealed before DADT gets
axed.
|7.23.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Hopefully the 111th Congress makes repealing DADT a top
priority....."?????????????
This plea does not trouble anybody?
Not THE top priority, but A top priority. You
have a problem with equal rights for gays? Eradicating legalized
inequality for people doing nothing wrong, should be a
high prioity.
|7.23.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Paul -
Sorry and good point about the distraction.
I don't think that Mr. Riggs was being facetious, do you?
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:33PM|#
Along those lines, the only reason homosexuality in the
military is a problem is because of the (extreme) discomfort it can
cause among straight [latently gay]
people in certain situations.
Fixed.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Libertymike... I actually think Riggs was being facetious as well. He's just a whipper-snapper intern, though. So we gotta cut the rookie a break.
|7.23.08 @ 7:38PM|#
I would (justifiably) be pretty damn uncomfortable showering
with a gay man. I doubt ANYONE who's actually served in a ground
combat unit doesn't buy the unit cohesion argument.
You're assuming he'd be ogling you. Secondly, to turn your argument
on its head, just because he may be attracted to MEN doesn't mean
he's attracted to you (a man).
Also, good "No True Irishman Ground-Pounder"
argument.
|7.23.08 @ 7:41PM|#
J sub D-
Do you know how many arguments I have had with DOMA disciples? How
many times I have called "conservative" radio talk shows to do
battle with the anti-Goodridge forces? I live in Massachusetts-I
know one of the attorneys who worked in behalf of one of the
plaintiff gay couples. Besides, I have cited Lawrence v Texas,
several times on these here blogs, in support of the propositions
tht (1) gvt. has no business regulating sexual behavior and (2)
judicial activism is good if it invalidates legislation that messes
with one's rights.
In addition-who here is more radically anarcho-individualist than
moi?
|7.23.08 @ 7:48PM|#
J sub D-
Eradicating legalized theft must be, has to be, of greater prioity
than delivering the death knell to DADT. Eradicating legalized
theft is more important than ending the drug war. Sorry LP, but
eradicating legalized theft is even more important than ballot
access.
Douglas Gray|7.23.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Why not have separate gay sqadrons, regiments, and
quarters?
No, seriously, Fluffy is right, look at how many women are hit on,
what a boondoggle it has been for the military to deal with rapes,
sexual harrassment, etc.
Closet gays in the military is a non-issue by comparison.
tim|7.23.08 @ 7:51PM|#
I would (justifiably) be pretty damn uncomfortable showering with a gay man.
You are so lacking in confidence in yourself and your sexuality
that you can't deal with one wink from another guy.
I am presently presently working for a guy who is a Lieutenant
Colonel in Air Force - his comment to me was that no one cares and
DADT gets in the way because good people get booted out because of
idiots like you anonymously turn them in for thinking that they
were "oogling" you in the shower. Grow the fuck up.
tim|7.23.08 @ 7:52PM|#
One other comment - as a gay man - the last thing I am doing is 'oogling' another guy in a public shower ... i mean seriously - have you seen them? Most need a few dozen miles on the treadmill...
|7.23.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Sadly, Ms. Donnelly and the so-called "Center for Military
Readiness" are as passionately opposed to women being allowed to
serve their country as they are to gay people.
So the "women...20 years argument" doesn't quite work.
LarryA|7.23.08 @ 7:54PM|#
An active duty soldier (a sergeant) told me his objection:
"We have group showers in the Amry. It would be just as
uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body
over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the
female troops had to shower with straight men."
Straight male sergeants who don't want to shower with women? Not
the Army I remember.
I submit that DADT repeal would not be a "top
priority".
I disagree. If Congress finds out how easy it is to repeal DADT,
maybe they'll get into the habit. Most of the best things Congress
could do involves repealing stuff.
I doubt ANYONE who's actually served in a ground combat unit
doesn't buy the unit cohesion argument.
I don't. (Air cavalry officer, Vietnam.)
My father was a white officer commanding a Quartermaster Corps
transport company in WWII. Afterward I remember someone asking
about his "negroes." He replied, "They could keep a
deuce-and-a-half* on a dirt road at night and bust enemy troops and
tanks with Ma-Deuce**. That made them good soldiers."
* Two and a half ton truck. ** M-2 Browning heavy machinegun.
|7.23.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Paul-
I have changed my mind-Mr. Riggs was being facetious. I should have
applied Heller: the prefatory clause can't contradict the operative
clause.
Elemenope|7.23.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Eradicating legalized theft must be, has to be, of greater
priority than delivering the death knell to DADT. Eradicating
legalized theft is more important than ending the drug war. Sorry
LP, but eradicating legalized theft is even more important than
ballot access.
Um...
Why?
|7.23.08 @ 7:56PM|#
I don't have a military background, but it strikes me that encouraging military personnel to become adept at misleading and being evasive with their comrades would be pretty bad for unit cohesion, too.
|7.23.08 @ 7:57PM|#
LarryA-
Agreed that the best thing Congress could do is just start
repealing stuff.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:58PM|#
You're assuming he'd be ogling you. Secondly, to turn your
argument on its head, just because he may be attracted to MEN
doesn't mean he's attracted to you (a man).
Yeah, like I'd be uncomfortable showering with this
person, 'cause if she scoped me in the shower, there'd be no
way she could keep her hands off of the P-man.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:59PM|#
become adept at misleading and being evasive with their
comrades would be pretty bad
But only if they're not asked... or something.
|7.23.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Elemenope-
Even a hard core anarcho-individualist like me is capable of
setting priorities. Seriously, if the magic libertarian leprechaun
appeared and granted me one congressional repeal, I would, without
hesitation, go for the income tax.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Agreed that the best thing Congress could do is just start
repealing stuff.
That's a negatory, libertymike. They've been repealing the first,
second, fourth and fifth amendments for years now, where'd that get
us?
Paul|7.23.08 @ 8:05PM|#
, if the magic libertarian leprechaun appeared and granted
me one congressional repeal
wow, I'm impressed you could make up your mind that quick.
I'd be all like "Oh... oh wait. Ok how about... oh no, surely... Oh
but what about... Ok, don't rush me now... what about the...no...
not the most important. Ok, uhh, can I take a week to think about
it?"
|7.23.08 @ 8:06PM|#
Elemenope-
Sorry, I didn't directly respond to your "why". My response: Cut
off the beast's oxygen.
|7.23.08 @ 8:12PM|#
libertymike - what about a repeal, or at least a rewrite, (to make shit like Wickard obsolete of the Commerce Clause?
|7.23.08 @ 8:14PM|#
Paul-
Even though you did not specifically mention it, I am sure that you
would have included the ninth in your list notwithstanding the
unfortunate reality that there are some here, learned and
otherwise, who are not very favorably disposed to what I consider
to be the crown jewel of the bill of rights.
bob|7.23.08 @ 8:17PM|#
I was hoping that Barr could talk some sense in to the more
libertarian leaning republicans, but today I learned of this
revolutionary new Turnout
Tool the RNC released.
Courtesy of it's magnetic surface on one side, from now until November, this innovative and practical John McCain Turnout Tool can be useful for hanging notes on your refrigerator and reminding you of the primary reason to vote for the RNC's nominee.
But in November, it becomes even more useful! It allows you the use of both hands in the ballot box, freeing you of the inconvenience of holding your nose while hanging your chad.
Order yours today!
|7.23.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Ayn Randian-
I betcha Rhenquist thought he was doing that in Lopez. Wickard also
sucks, for me, in that it represents just one of hundreds of cases
where Douglas and Black were not in dissent and should have
been-but they were new dealers.
Just Sayin\'|7.23.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Straight male sergeants who don't want to shower with women?
Not the Army I remember.
remember it's women in the *army* were talking about here. for
every Jessica Lynch there's a dozen Lydie Englands.
the air force, OTOH.
|7.23.08 @ 8:32PM|#
Elemenope-
BTW, relative to my 8:14 post, you are not one of the "and
otherwise".
Episiarch|7.23.08 @ 8:37PM|#
Any guy who doesn't like gay guys ogling him is an idiot. It's a
fucking compliment, and one that chicks generally don't do because
in the game of heterosexuality, guys pursue the girls.
My favorite gay guy line to me, after referring to a water pump:
"I'd like to pump you."
|7.23.08 @ 8:56PM|#
In the old army, which I am most familiar, SGMs stuck to stealing from the clubs, they didn't worry about being 6'8". That bundle of cash and a chest full of self awarded ribbons said it all. Last thing they wanted to do was get out of the shadow of the PX.
Fluffy|7.23.08 @ 9:22PM|#
The group showers thing is a group shower problem, and
not a gay problem.
I hate group showers and it doesn't matter WHO is in them. Straight
guys, gay guys, Martians, whoever.
Because I hate them so much, I have avoided them as much as
possible.
So on my first day in the Army, I would have to grow up a bit and
get over my group shower problem.
On the first day that gays are in the Army, some other folks will
have to grow up a bit and get over their group shower
problem.
"No no no, it's not that group showering takes getting used to,
it's the whole ogling thing." I bet the first group shower that
sergeant took, however many years ago, he experienced a general
discomfort that had nothing to do with gays. He got over that
discomfort then, he can get over his fantasy discomfort now.
And I think the whole "ogling" thing is being grossly exaggerated
in some hysterical and neurotic peoples' minds. If I was in a coed
shower, I actually would NOT ogle the women, particularly if I had
to deal with them every day. If anything, I would be paranoid about
making sure I didn't do anything that could remotely be construed
as ogling. And most people would be pretty much the same. You know
that feeling you get in a line of urinals at the ball game, when
you want to make sure no one thinks you're looking to either side?
That's the way people would be in the showers, folks.
Episiarch|7.23.08 @ 9:37PM|#
Hmm, Fluffy, you are insane. Put a group of straight dudes in a
shower with fit straight chicks and...
libertymike, the dude who did that was years ago. He looked a lot
like you though.
Haven't you all done some sort of "let's all shower together"
idiocy when younger? I though it was de riguer.
|7.23.08 @ 10:41PM|#
It's time for DADT to go. Homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military; let the people who are offended or disgusted by homosexuality not join the military. There. Problem solved.
|7.23.08 @ 10:45PM|#
Fluffy,
If we ever manage to progress to that kind of coed showering, I
don't ogling will be much of an issue. Sort of like the coed shower
scene from Verhoeven's version of Starship Troopers.
Mike Laursen|7.23.08 @ 11:15PM|#
The answer is so simple. Turn one branch of the armed forces into the openly gay one. Hmm, now which one would be the obvious choice?
The Wine Commonsewer|7.24.08 @ 12:08AM|#
Turn one branch of the armed forces into the openly gay one.
Hmm, now which one would be the obvious choice?
Not the Corpsmen, though.
The Wine Commonsewer|7.24.08 @ 12:10AM|#
My favorite gay guy line to me, after referring to a water
pump: "I'd like to pump you."
My favorite gay guy line to me.....
Get real, you're not my type.
:-)
The Wine Commonsewer|7.24.08 @ 12:15AM|#
Fluff, I'd be checking out the chicks in the group shower,
guaranteed. But, I don't think it's coming to that.
Speaking of group shower phobias, my boy is going into junior high,
so I had a talk with him about that. I think he'll be okay, some
guys I knew weren't. That's why I wanted to talk about it.
When I was in basic in Uncle Sam's Misguided Children we had so dam
little time to shit, shower, and shave that I don't recall even
noticing that there were any other guys in the shower.
Later, things were much more private, even though the showers were
not terribly private. The timing was.
|7.24.08 @ 12:36AM|#
Let's see now. The group shower thing is a problem because some
soldiers would rather be ogled by someone not known to be gay than
by someone known to be gay?
Show some courage, dudes! Does our society really want to be
defended by someone who can't get over a case of the heebie-jeebies
regarding the willies?
Jennifer|7.24.08 @ 12:46AM|#
In summary: it's okay to ask heterosexual guys to face the threat of loss of life and limb to defend their country, but the threat of a gay guy looking at their whangdoodles is just too traumatizing to consider.
|7.24.08 @ 3:54AM|#
On the shower argument, I've been in the Army a few years now
and have run into relatively few group showers. They're mostly
limited to training barracks. A lot of soldiers don't live in
barracks (esp officers and NCOs), and most of the barracks that
units live in are much nicer than training barracks (i.e. single or
double rooms, group bathroom down the hall but with individual
showers).
A bit off topic, but since a lot of people think the ogling
argument is stupid, what is the justification for separate men's
and women's bathrooms and locker rooms generally? Sure one gender
might ogle the other (hard in a bathroom with separate stalls), but
shouldn't those people just get over it as some people seem to be
saying?
|7.24.08 @ 8:08AM|#
Paul,
But only if they're not asked... or something.
Seriously, let's walk through this:
"'Sup, Donny? Hey, is that a wedding ring?"
OK, who asked and who told?
|7.24.08 @ 8:49AM|#
non-military guy here.
Aight, so if I were in a shower with a whole bunch of (let's assume
attractive) women, I'd probably have trouble hiding my excitement,
especially if I were of the age that most guys join the military.
If I was particularly trying NOT to get noticed (which I don't know
how you'd do in this case, except maybe shave your body and tuck it
between your legs...), wouldn't I have a difficult time? This would
be embarassing if I weren't "supposed" to have this reaction, no?
Nobody's ever gotten an erection at an inappropriate time?
So generally, wouldn't you think that gay guys might feel
uncomfortable in the shower with men who they're attracted to whom
they know don't want their attention? For those who are embarassed
about it, might there be some other arrangement that could be made,
or at minimum, some sympathy?
Elemenope|7.24.08 @ 10:38AM|#
So generally, wouldn't you think that gay guys might feel
uncomfortable in the shower with men who they're attracted to whom
they know don't want their attention? For those who are embarassed
about it, might there be some other arrangement that could be made,
or at minimum, some sympathy?
That argument might hold water if it were the gay guys who were
trying to *not* be in the Army. But since it's the inverse
situation, I'm not sure how it applies.
It is an interesting observation nonetheless.
|7.24.08 @ 10:48AM|#
"When they make an airplane where the cockpit (ahem) can
accomodate a heterosexual pilot but not a homosexual pilot, this
will cease to be the third stupidest analogy ever."
For entertainment, will you please give us the first two most
stupid analogies ever?
|7.24.08 @ 11:22AM|#
I would (justifiably) be pretty damn uncomfortable showering
with a gay man.
I honestly don't get this. I don't think I would be uncomfortable
showering with women or with gay men. The first time or two it
would be a little odd, but having been to nude beaches, it is
amazing how quickly it becomes no big deal to be naked around
people.
|7.24.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Well the worst public "private" moment I had in the Army was going to the shitter at the RUBA (Rotational Unit Bivoac Area) in Fort Irwin, CA. I walked in to the latrine and found about 10 toilets lined up; dress right, dressed- with no stalls, partition, dividers, doors- nothing. Let me tell you what, laying an egg with a neighbor is one of things that made me wonder Y My Retarded Ass Signed Up (U.S. Army backwards acronym)
|7.24.08 @ 12:04PM|#
oh and then there were the females remarking on the long, low sink...(the latrines were identical) you do the math
LarryA|7.24.08 @ 12:40PM|#
remember it's women in the *army* were talking about here.
for every Jessica Lynch there's a dozen Lydie Englands.
Male mantra: "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one
you're with."
|7.24.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Active-duty solider: "It would be just as uncomfortable for me
to have a gay man potentially looking my body over in a sexual way
as it would be if we had coed showers and the female troops had to
shower with straight men."
So, let me understand: This guy is willing to run ashore in a hail
of gunfire, willing to face maimings and traumatic amputations and
hideous tortures in service to his country, but the idea of another
guy sneaking a furtive glimpse at his bare ass has him clutching
his pearls in terror?
Are you sure "I'm a big pussy" is the argument you want to make
here?
|7.24.08 @ 5:53PM|#
"Along those lines, the only reason homosexuality in the
military is a problem is because of the (extreme) discomfort it can
cause among straight [latently gay] people in certain
situations.
Fixed."
Now that's just stupid.
"You're assuming he'd be ogling you. Secondly, to turn your
argument on its head, just because he may be attracted to MEN
doesn't mean he's attracted to you (a man)."
I'm assuming nothing of the sort. A 300-pound woman could be pretty
sure I'd not ogle her in the shower or anywhere else, but she'd
still not want to shower with me.
And it's nothing like "no true Irishman," it's that those who've
served know what the situation would be like, and those who haven't
don't.
"Why not have separate gay sqadrons, regiments, and
quarters?"Logistically, that simply wouldn't work.
"You are so lacking in confidence in yourself and your sexuality
that you can't deal with one wink from another guy." You are an
idiot. In what world does not wanting to shower with a gay man
equate to lack of confidence in my own sexuality?
"idiots like you anonymously turn them in for thinking that they
were "oogling" you in the shower. Grow the fuck up."
Nice comment for an anonymous poster.
"One other comment - as a gay man - the last thing I am doing is
'oogling' another guy in a public shower ... i mean seriously -
have you seen them? Most need a few dozen miles on the
treadmill..."
Obviously, that does not apply to the military.
"My father was a white officer commanding a Quartermaster Corps
transport company in WWII. Afterward I remember someone asking
about his "negroes." He replied, "They could keep a
deuce-and-a-half* on a dirt road at night and bust enemy troops and
tanks with Ma-Deuce**. That made them good soldiers.""
If all black men were gay, that would be relevant.
"Any guy who doesn't like gay guys ogling him is an idiot."
Are you serious?
And anyway, the group shower argument is one tiny piece. I think
most of you don't understand how close you get to other men in the
military. Really REALLY close. for there to be any hint of sexual
attraction would kill the whole thing.
And I've seen it happen too with guys I knew to be straight, but
who happened to be a bit feminine in mannerisms. The dynamic just
wasn't the same.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245