DADT.
I haven’t commented on this because I have a somewhat different perspective.
See, if Gays area llowed to serve openly, that means that gay men will be showering with other gay men, and men who are not gay.
Justice William Brennan wrote, as I understand, the first opinion on the matter (I am not a constitutional lawyer and do not play one on TV, so if I am incorrect, please correct me) of Pornography.
“Speech which ” . . . to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest” ”
If a man who is sexually aroused by other men takes a shower with other naked men, this by it’s very nature appeals to his prurient interests. Sure, this is less of an issue during combat than at other times, but bear with me a moment.
So by allowing gay men to shower with and be around other naked men is providing them with free pornography, so to speak.
Let me back up for a moment to talk about men showering.
In 1980, I entered the workforce at Inland Steel. The work was hard, dangerous, and filthy. You took a shower at the end of the day because you didn’t want to be seen in public that dirty, and some of the shit you got into was fairly toxic. Every day, I took a showwer with 185 other men, and several of those men were gay.
Let me be perfectly clear on this: None of them were studying me, and that was just fine.
There were guys, though, guys I worked with, who were strong and fit and in great physical condition, and they were a particular source of interest to the few gay guys.
I know this because one of my best friends was one of those gay guys, and he spent a good deal of time talking about how much he liked the look of D___ or K___. He tried not to be too obvious because had he singled out any of them he’d have probably been beaten within an inch of his life.
Had the men in question known that their nakedness was being examined by other men, they would have been fairly uncomfortable with it, I’m sure. You just wanted to get your shower and go home.
Military men- and women- deserve to be able to be 100% comfortable in these situations. Knowing that they might be the object of inspection by others is difficult enough when you think all the people you are with have the same sexual identity, let alone when there is some diversity of that.
On the flipside of this: If the gay men and women have the opportunity to ogle objects of their desire at will, is it not discriminatory to NOT include women in mens shower rooms and vice-versa? The very concept punishes the straight people.
Just a different perspective that has not, as far as I can see, explored elsewhere.
A side note: I once worked with a man named Emil. Emil was as gay as a treeload of monkeys. Emil weighed 500 lbs if he weighed an ounce, and he had lost many of his teeth, the remaining ones being summer teeth (Summer green, summer yellow, etc) and he looked like he shaved with the same brick he brushed his teeth with. He was about as attractive as it is possible not to be, and I’ve seen him kiss other men, and it made me pretty well sick to my stomach. And guys I knew who were into buttsecs would hook up with him, guys I thought to be normal otherwise.
During my lifetime, I have had relations with women who, in retrospect, were the female equivalent of Emil, some of whom had better beards. In retrospect, I think this is the final test of teh gay: If you will consider a partner who is not attractive,based on other qualities that you perceive, that is the orientation you have to work with.
22 comments Og | Uncategorized
If you want free gay porn, join the army. If you want free straight porn, join the TSA. The gov’ment provides for ALL.
I have never liked group showers since I was first introduced to them in Jr High School. But I never cared if there was a gay person there or not because I was just there to get clean. I don’t really care what fantasies another person has going on inside his head.
I was once in a group shower in the Netherlands when a woman decided to shower witht he guys because the line was too long with the women’s showers. The experience was entertaining but nothing to write home about. She may have been amused by being the center of attention in the male shower or by being surrounded by the male eye candy, but an orgy did not spontaniously erupt. Not did all the guys grab towels and run screaming for the exits.
I have also noticed that in the case of men and women, full nudity (as in the case of a shower) is not required for one to admire another or to decide to pursue them for the purposes of sex. I have no experience around Homosexuals, but I imagine that they are as free to decline offers as heterosexuals.
As for DADT, I have served for 25 years active service, enlisted and as an officer. I don’t believe there will be any great harm to readiness or cohesion resulting from letting Homesexuals serve openly. But their relationships are not equal to heterosexual marriages and the government should not recognize them as such. The military lost the moral high ground on that issue when they integrated women into the force. Sex in uniform is an inescapable fact of life in the modern military. Homosexual sex can only be a miliscule additional irritant.
There are already gay people serving, though. Quite a few of them.
My impression from what I hear is that their fellow soldiers often “know” it, too, and that this is rarely a problem.
“Anything that makes some troops uncomfortable is bad” is not an argument that I find convincing, given how well they seem to adapt to what was previously considered intolerable discomfort (see integration).
Men outside the Services manage to exist in a world where a gay man might think they’re attractive. I think our Soldiers can probably survive it, even if they might be seen in the nude.
If this really is such a problem, then maybe the solution is to stop having group showers.
“Anything that makes some troops uncomfortable is bad†is not an argument that I find convincing, given how well they seem to adapt to what was previously considered intolerable discomfort (see integration).
See Political Correctness.
See POSH (prevention of sexual harassment)
See Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
See “racist”
See adding to the list “homophobe” for every intollerable discomfort homosexuals feel around people who are not down with their program.
It seems making people put up with intollerable discomfort only goes one way.
“It seems making people put up with intollerable discomfort only goes one way.” Ten points to prof for getting the point.
When I was younger than anyone here and a lot prettier than even Muhammad Ali BELIEVED he was, I was the object of several gay men’s desires. Never bothered me. OTOH, the common showers in Jr. High DID. Go figure.
I roomed with a gay guy on the road for about six months. He was only interested in getting out to the baths, and I was trying to get into the pants of the ingenue. We didn’t even need to hang socks on the doorknobs.
That-all said, I completely get the unit cohesion argument and note that at no time was my life dependent on asshole-buddy trust between me and either my admirers OR my roomie.
M
“only goes one way.â€
It seems to me that disabling that “check valve” ought be the first priority before anything new happens.
In fact, how about universal “check valve” reform? Let’s end victimoguery before we provide it a new venue to exploit — especially one so critical to national security.
My wife and I have been having discussions on this topic,on and off, for the past couple of months now.
I have to agree with the Prof above 100%, on both his comments. (For those who don’t know, I also retired from active Naval service after 20 years.)
The real issue most service members have is not with the “gays” or the “straights”, or the “women”, or “minorities”, who have been “allowed” equal opportunity (in most cases, across the military spectrum of career paths). What we did (and I suspect still do) take exception to was the resulting “unequal treatment” that each “social advancement” produced to the rank and file.
For example:
You are not able to meet the physical standards as required for one gender to either stay in service, or to “graduate” from basic training. Why that’s ok, we will just set up a lesser standard for your gender. Never mind the greater implications of some unit now having a percentage of its force no longer being equal to the physical demands required, parity must be met!
Oh, and never mind that this does a diservice to those of the gender given the “pass”, who would do what ever it took to meet the original physical requirements. or to those of any minority who did their level best to score as high as they could on advancement tests because they wanted to excel, but knew damn well, they had others in their respective “racially profiled” group, who were able to be “passed and advanced” at a lower cut off then the rest.
Now the gays are asking to be allowed to be above board in their sexuality status. As far as that goes, I have no problem with it. But knowing, and having personally lived through more “social engineering experiments” than I care to remember, I wonder how they (the military) are going to screw this one up, when the answer to this (and most other concerns) is to expect, apply, and demand equal adherence to the UCMJ across the board.
If your conduct is unbecoming regardless if you are straight or gay, then your conduct is unbecoming period. If you are committing adultery and happen to be charged with same, (and yes it is very much still on the books, UCMJ-wise) regardless if you and or your partner is straight or gay (or bi), you stand to be brought up on the charge of adultery Period.
Sadly, I wonder if the PC infected, politically charged (specifically at the very senior levels) military will see it this way.
Sorry for hogging your space Og. Edit at will, this one struck a nerve.
Guy, the whole point of the post was to bring people like you to the discussion.
Sigivald,
They’re “uncomfortable” for good reason, just as most women (not all, of course, but “data” isn’t the plural of “anecdote”) would be “uncomfortable” sharing showers and close living quarters with most men.
“But they can take care of themselves” is also offered as an argument for, in the same breath as the claim that some gay men are bigger, stronger, and meaner than most and wouldn’t they make excellent soldiers! Seems a bit of a paradox, like saying that there’s no realistic threat to unit cohesion, and maybe everyone should shower and bunk separately. That might work in the Air Force, outside Basic Training, but don’t try that trick in combat, or in a submarine (yellow or otherwise).
I also note that women don’t serve in combat units in either the Army or the Marines, partly for these same reasons.
(Gratuitous commentary about Navy boys and their entertainments is, of course, suppressed.)
I have not served in the Military so I don’t know that side of it, but at college I lived in a co-ed dorm in the late 70’s early 80’s where women and men showered and shit in the same places without getting all heated-up about it, it wasn’t very sexual – and some of us also frequented a nude beach together.
The chicks didn’t all get banged-up, and the guys sure as hell didn’t get laid all the time either. As a Socialist, barrier-breaking incitement to “Free-Love” or setting the conditions thereof, for me it was spectacularly unsuccessful and a huge disappointment.
DODT is more about some phony notion of “social justice” and leveraging identity-politics to promote a political agenda than anythign to do with Military ideas of unit cohesion, or any of the other army/navy stuff including the dick-pulling and jackassery that can occur in a single-sex shower area among heteros (I was on the swim-team and know what straight guys are likem and it aint always pretty either).
And especially don’t mention the Spartan stuff of the ancient warrior elites and their particular mores or those of their moms.
First: I’ve served with gays, but not in combat. They kept it quiet, except when one picked a fight with me wherein observers observed that he was more interested in wrestling, IFGMD. We both ended up article 15. Not good for unit cohesion.
Two: In a combat sit, I’d hate for the squad leader to refrain from putting someone (either sex) on point because of sexual preference. That’s never discussed and I’ve paid attention. Talk about unit cohesion problems.
Three: I’m aware of a situation on a sub recently where a known gay was tolerated, until there was an incident. He was friendly and outgoing (of course) but then he came onto another sailor. It didn’t end well. And these idiots are thinking of putting women on fast attacks? Sure some NATO allies do it. And there are problems.
Mike, I served on a LA-class fast attack submarine and all the showers barely fit one person, much less two.
I went to Navy boot camp in 1975 in Orlando with the WAVES… Yes, we had a group shower for 80+ guys but we were all so dog-tired at the end of the day nobody had any leftover energy for scoping each other out. After 3 months I started training and was on a submarine for 4 years. I *never* had a group shower after boot camp…
We had at least one gay guy on the boat (and this is back in the Dark Ages where that could get you discharged) but I never heard a single complaint about Richard… Lots of speculation but nothing more.
The only gay-related event on the Omaha was when a pair of useless jerks in the M division (nuclear operators) were “caught in bed” by one of their wives and both ended up with General Discharges.
When being in the closet made you a blackmail risk restricting gays in the military might have made sense… Society has moved on and being gay isn’t a big deal now. DADT doesn’t serve any useful purpose in my opinion…
Rick T
Another (this time quick) thought. With all the hoopla over the years about “sexual harassment” and “sexual politics”, at both the enlisted and officer levels, one wonders when the first charge (from either sex, it doesn’t matter) of “same sex, sexual harassment” is going to bubble to the surface. And will it be adjudicated the same as any other sexual harassment case.
I guess at the end of the day, most of the Sailors I served with, would like nothing more then to be treated as SAILORS no more, no less. Those were the ones who were not (insert ethnic group here)-Sailors, or Women in the Navy, they were Sailors. It is the ones who have drank deep of the diversity koolade, that we have to treat all opposing views as equal or of equal merit, that used their individual “status” as a crutch. If those who happen to be gay, are first and foremost Sailors, this will end up being little more then a tempest in a tea pot.
Society has moved on and being gay isn’t a big deal now.
Tell it to all the gays still in the closet.
Prof H, I think Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing would disagree, not to mention Ellen Degeneres.
Hi all~ i was raised in b etter times by better people so I don’t have to polish this turd.
The purpose o f the military is to blast things to pieces and kill people. It is not about making queers feel good about themselves.
What I see happening is some light loafer flimp bursting into tears when his drill instructor does his job and claiming its a hate crime. Or they get passed over for prmotion and claim it was ‘gay discrimination’.
I learnt everything I need to know about those butt blasters from the sanfrancisco parades. that shit belongs in the bath house and other pervert parlours, not in the military.
(cough) Well, that wasn’t a particularly inspiring comment.
But correct on the the one point: To kill people and break things. “But the Europeans allow gays to serve” is somewhat short of a convincing argument when you consider what they put up in the way of a competent military. That’s what happens when you’re more worried about being nice, non-discriminatory, and progressive than being effective.
Rusty may not have been eloquent, but he hit one nerve…what happens the first time a gay service troop wants to pull out the gay card to trump an Article 15, failed promotion or some other shortcoming (no pun intended)?
You KNOW that’s going to happen, because it happens all the time in other government employment (where I spent over 30 years).
How the military handles it will be interesting, because no one else has handled it well up to now.
That ship has sailed, Rusty, Dog. We’ve tolerated special privileges for classes of people that the Left artfully, artificially created.
Most times that those in decision making positions pulled this sort of PC trick, I was too busy to gather a group of friends and shout “no way” to those making the rules.
However, in the few instances that I did, those in power said, “ok, we got the message,” and they reversed themselves. That is until the next time when I didn’t notice because I was too busy making a living.
The primary thing about these bastards that is progressive is their relentless pursuit of power.
When you stop them once, the wait and pull it off the next time.
Where I am NOT eternally vigilant, the bastards make progress in their enslavement of me. And even when I am vigilant, I cannot convince enough neighbors to be interested probably because I have failed to get them understand the dangers to themselves.
Hell, even in this group, I apparently failed to get Rusty and Dog and prolly everybody else to see see that I said much the same thing at(15 Dec 2010 at 4:34 pm). I think I must be in some version of Hell already.
Look: The Left wanted open homosexual service back in the days when Clinton signed DADT to begin with (in 1993?). Now the Left wants the next step. But most of the rest of our institutions ALREADY have been infected. How’d that happen? From relentless attacks of
ProgressivesAggressives, many of them paid to do it while we worked to pay the taxes that funded them.This is simply one more progressive whittling away at our institutions. In this instance it is our armed forces institution. In the end, maybe that is Og’s point. Just bend over one more time.
Notice, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3iFhLdWjqc the cat on the left is the progressive one: alternately aggressive and feigning disinterested. He’d the first to punch the cat on the right in the nose. :)