It appears DADT is on the way out within the next 60 days. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins struck a compromise which disconnected the repeal from federal budget measures... all of which were in danger of being sunk. At least this was a win of sorts. Hopefully the military will play ball by suspending all current investigations and proceedings in anticipation of the new policy, which doesn't go into effect until the pentagon can advise on a coherent new policy for the military regarding openness.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
john mccain: n .. no .. we need more time! more surveys!
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
In my opinion - people have sex. Usually with other people. It shouldn't be more complicated than that. So glad to see this go.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Yay, no more secret soldiers. Now we get to see if soldiers care to announce themselves or not, and wether it will cause any problems.
So many Navy jokes... and it may not be pc to tell them now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was please to see Sen. Kirk, our new Republican senator, break ranks and vote in favor of the repeal. He ran to the center; maybe this is a sign he well stay there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ETA: J.H.C. I'm looking at the Fox Nation culture page. This is the trashiest crap I have ever seen from a major network in my life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Fox has been trashier.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not especially vocal about Fox News, I just ignore it when I can, but oh my gosh that Fox Nation culture section made me want to tear my eyes out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm pretty vocal about fox news cause it actively makes you dumber and less informed if you watch it.
and hey, i like people's brains to be less rotted as opposed to more.
do you or a friend use fox news? educate your family about the dangers of fox news. only you can put out forest fires. of dumb.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not especially vocal about Fox News, I just ignore it when I can, but oh my gosh that Fox Nation culture section made me want to tear my eyes out.
I know right? I knew fox news was crappy for a lot of reasons, I had no idea it had become so blatantly trashy. I mean, those headlines read like ones you might see on Savage Nation or something really bat**** "aliens punctured my testicles" crazy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Burr hits the nail on the head in his statement when he refers to generational change. Poll after poll shows a clear generational divide when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage and gay rights. As the younger generation of voters become more politically active, the debate is shifting on those issues to the point where, in twenty years or less, people will likely be amazed that we wasted so much time and money fighting over an issue like who a person should be allowed to enter a committed relationship with. There’s a lesson in Burr’s vote for the GOP as a whole. Opposition to issues like same-sex marriage and concentration on issues that appeal only to a tiny part of the base may pay political dividends right now, but in the not-too-distant future, it’s likely to turn off an entire generation of voters.
Uh, haven't they already been showering together? I mean, if 13,000 troops have been kicked out in the past 17 years for being gay, then I guarantee there have probably been at least 10 times that number of gay soldiers. I know several myself. Now, because you can no longer get in trouble for being gay in the military, showering with gays is suddenly a big deal? It's been happening since they invented showers.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
^Was my first reaction to this. I believe it requires some powerful self-deception to not draw that connection immediately.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I know of atleast one couple who actually met in the Navy, any demands that one soldier not have to shower with another kind of soldier could only be fixed with private showers for all personel regardless of gender and sexuality. It seems a bit petty for the US military, being in the service isnt exactly famous as being comfortable and adaptable to the wants of a whiney bigot.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Showers in the canadian military are fairly private, the stalls each have walls and a door.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Maybe on halfway-permanent bases that are actually in Canada. If you had been to Iraq or Afghanistan you might have found some different showers.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Showers in the canadian military are fairly private, the stalls each have walls and a door.
The ones you saw did. That is not sufficient information to state such a claim, unless you are actually aware of some standard in the Canadian military which must be met in that regard.
Also, we're talking about the US military, where I do believe in some cases private toilet facilities are not provided, much less showers.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Maybe on halfway-permanent bases that are actually in Canada. If you had been to Iraq or Afghanistan you might have found some different showers.
These were basically in those portable shipping containing type facilities, the ones I imagine to be quite portable and would be lifted into such places or hauled on trains/flatbed trucks.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Showers in the canadian military are fairly private, the stalls each have walls and a door.
It depends on where you are. The barracks I live in look somewhat like hotel rooms - you have 2 walk in closets, 2 secretaries, 2 beds, 2 end tables, as well as a large desk/bookshelf thingy with 2 chairs and a fridge. It's got a private bathroom, just like you'd find in an apartment. In boot camp/SOI, though, we slept in a squad bays and had a "rain room" with 12 shower heads. When you need to get 80 men cleaned in 10 minutes, private stalls just aren't practical. We'd usually double up on a shower head, and have a third guy soaping up while the other two rinsed.
At first it was a little uncomfortable, especially trying to navigate a small shower room with a bunch of other guys... you'd try and squeeze out to grab your towel and feel something squishy slap against your leg. By the end, though, we lost any sense of modesty and there was a lot of ass slapping and oil checks and guys soaping up each others backs and so forth. I think if you put a bunch of naked guys together long enough, things naturally drift in that direction. It only seems weird to civilians because they're not used to living, eating, sleeping, shooting, running, talking, digging, and showering with the same group of guys for months on end. Actually, I don't think many people outside the military ever have platonic relationships that close, which is kind of sad.
Anyway, it seems to me all this fuss is being caused by people who have no friends or family members who are gay, and don't really understand it. They think that a gay man is going to lust after all his brothers in a shower room... to counter that, I say, remember being a kid and taking a bath with your sister? Now imagine for whatever reason you had to take showers with your siblings nowadays. You may be attracted to females, but you're not going to be lusting after your sister, are you? (at least, I hope not) It's sort of the same idea, I think.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Well, I'm glad some good has come of this session. I wasn't expecting much.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I showered in the large open shower rooms when I was in the Army. I never once saw any man offer to soap up another man's back. Not in 3 years.
I would be uncomfortable showering with a gay man, despite being comfortable and confident with my sexual orientation. I know a few guys who were gay when I was in the Army, and I just made sure I showered at a different time than they did, and they took no offense at it. As a matter of fact, they usually tried to shower when others weren't in the shower room as well, for their own comfort.
But denying it could cause a lot of potential problems is not facing reality.
In situations where you are in the field, I imagine they could address this by making another category or two, as they already do for men and women.
And you are not related to anyone else you are showering with, so expecting a man or a woman not to notice the physical form they are attracted to is not realistic. The comparison to bathing with your sister, years before puberty, is a poor one. The fact is that you will now have soldiers bathing with people they already find attractive, only now they are allowed to comment on that attraction.
Nothing that can't be dealt with, of course, but simply saying it shouldn't be a problem doesn't mean it won't be.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I showered in the large open shower rooms when I was in the Army. I never once saw any man offer to soap up another man's back. Not in 3 years.
I've showered in not so large shower rooms, and I'm in the Marine Corps. I've seen and heard some pretty hilarious things.
I remember one time when we did have separate stalls, we had two SSgts who always played gay chicken with each other. They were getting pretty into it (with fake high pitched voices, much to the amusement of the other men), when one of them said "well, if that's the way you feel, come on over here and tell me about it!" The first one ran over to his stall and rips open the curtain, hoping to freak him out, but the second one grabbed him and pulled him into the stall.
I don't know what time frame you served during, but the Marine Corps is well known for such things. Just look up Man Love Thursday if you don't believe me.
In one of my buddies units, they took it so far that one guy in the platoon who didn't really understand irony or sarcasm complained to the company commander about the rampant homosexuality in his workplace. The captain told him he couldn't do anything about it, but told him he'd arrange him a meeting with the battalion XO. The captain goes and talks to him about it first. Guy meets with the XO, a major, and starts telling him about his problems... the major acts very concerned, then walks around the desk and starts massaging the guys shoulders, telling him to "tell me, how does all this make you feel?"
Then he went on to explain it was just a joke, and the marine ended up lightening up after that.
I think it's interesting you never saw any of this in the Army, but I guess it depends on who you're with.
quote:I would be uncomfortable showering with a gay man, despite being comfortable and confident with my sexual orientation. I know a few guys who were gay when I was in the Army, and I just made sure I showered at a different time than they did, and they took no offense at it. As a matter of fact, they usually tried to shower when others weren't in the shower room as well, for their own comfort.
But denying it could cause a lot of potential problems is not facing reality.
Okay, so you knew the soldiers were gay. And this was during DADT. And you managed to find a way to deal with it in a way that both of you could work with.
Tell me, how does any of this change now that everyone, and not just the other soldiers in their unit, know they're gay? It seems like the exact same situation.
quote:And you are not related to anyone else you are showering with, so expecting a man or a woman not to notice the physical form they are attracted to is not realistic. The comparison to bathing with your sister, years before puberty, is a poor one. The fact is that you will now have soldiers bathing with people they already find attractive, only now they are allowed to comment on that attraction.
Again, maybe the difference between Marines and Soldiers, but I consider the men I work with my brothers - in many ways, a lot of them are closer than any family I've ever had. I couldn't imagine being aroused by showering with them, even if they were female. (much in the same way I can't imagine being aroused by family members. It's not pre/post pubescent, it's just... ew.) Moreover, I doubt your average gay man is really looking to score with straight guys. I think the discomfort many feel comes from them imagining the gay men looking them up and down lecherously, when if anything, they'd actually just feel a little grossed out.
quote:Nothing that can't be dealt with, of course, but simply saying it shouldn't be a problem doesn't mean it won't be.
But it *hasn't* been a problem, not since our military was started! Why should it suddenly become one now?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Maybe on halfway-permanent bases that are actually in Canada. If you had been to Iraq or Afghanistan you might have found some different showers.
No kidding. Being ogled is the least of their worries in those showers.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:The fact is that you will now have soldiers bathing with people they already find attractive, only now they are allowed to comment on that attraction.
I'm not certain what you're suggesting here, but nothing that would be inappropriate for a man to say to a woman or vice versa would suddenly become okay under this new law between a gay individual and a straight individual.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, fraternization is still against the rules. It always has been. Perhaps now the staff sergeants will be aware of who is gay, and police fraternization between those people the same way they do between men and women.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: Moreover, I doubt your average gay man is really looking to score with straight guys.
Depending on who you talk to you, most people of any gender or sexual preferance are not attracted to thier antithesis in romantic matters. Straight women arent romantically attracted to affeminate gay men while they may appreciate a physique but more for general aesthetic than anything. I find women in general beuatiful but I dont think I would care for the female chollo that comes into my store on the basis that I like to be wanted in return when it comes to a real person rather than a face or name. People need to get away from the idea that homosexuals are rampant perverts with no self control, lesbians will not make your kids gay and gay men will not rape you just because you have a cute butt.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There seems to be a strong sexual abuse history in the US military, with a surprising number of women soldiers claiming to have been raped or forced into sex by those of higher ranks or by group dynamics of similar ranked soldiers.
Those who seem the most afraid of this new reality seem as ill informed and uncaring of others as the abusers. In other words, as a Sarge I ordered my women to have sex with me. Sure, its against the rules, but hey--everyone is doing it and they really don't mind or they wouldn't have joined the army. Oh--wait, now that big male captain can do the same to me? Oh no. That is not fair.
I was also a bit disturbed by the Chaplain corps reaction. According to information from NPR, there is a growing number of Evangelical Christians in the Chaplain corp--mainly because Catholic Priests are getting rare, and other religions just don't volunteer as much. (The idea of our Army becoming a Christian Army willing to convert via automatic weapon is scary and would make a great story)
Anyway, they complained that having Gay soldiers in the military would make their job more difficult, since they would have to find a way to work with soldiers who believed differently than they do. Wait a minute? Don't they already deal with soldiers who believe differently than they do? Don't they already deal with non-Christian Soldiers, Catholics, LDS, Muslims?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or perhaps just as important or more-so, they also have to deal with non-Christian, currently predominantly Muslim civilians if deployed overseas.
It is probably for the best if those that have difficulty dealing with fellow soldiers of a different background get discouraged long before they have to get to the task of winning the "hearts and minds" of civilians.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: [QUOTE] People need to get away from the idea that homosexuals are rampant perverts with no self control, lesbians will not make your kids gay and gay men will not rape you just because you have a cute butt.
But isn't it then hypocritical to suggest we separate men and women showers and barracks? Unless you're saying that gay people are inherently more self controlled than straight and therefore more capable of showering and bunking with those they might be physically attracted to?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But isn't it then hypocritical to suggest we separate men and women showers and barracks? Unless you're saying that gay people are inherently more self controlled than straight and therefore more capable of showering and bunking with those they might be physically attracted to?
Men are, on average, larger, stronger, and more aggressive than women. There is also a well-documented history of sexual assault by men against women, including (especially?) within the armed forces. There is no similar history of gay men assaulting other men.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
so the discrimination is based on physical stature and aggression, not sexual attraction?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: so the discrimination is based on physical stature and aggression, not sexual attraction?
I'd say it's cultural, as well. We live in a culture where men and women being casually naked together is taboo. There are other societies where it's perfectly acceptable - see some tribes in Africa and S. America that run around naked all the time, or the public baths in ancient Rome.
As far as living quarters, well, it's been statistically shown that time(man + woman)=baby. Soldiers already have ridiculous amounts of unsafe sex and illegitimate children as is, no need to encourage such things...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: so the discrimination is based on physical stature and aggression, not sexual attraction?
Are you looking for an answer, or just trolling? The paradigm is based on accepted social standards. The sexes do not shower and bunk together if it is feasible to separate them. This is not only because most men and women are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, but also because there exists the strong likelihood that if they were to shower and bunk together, there would be issues of harassment or abuse, or at least undue discomfort. This is simply not the case with homosexuals- there is always the possibility of problems, however they are bound to be less serious ones given that the people involved are of the same sex, and it is socially acceptable anyway for them to shower and bunk together. The problems inherent in separating them are worse than the possible issues they will have together.
Of all straws to grasp at, this is a truly pathetic one.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: [QUOTE] People need to get away from the idea that homosexuals are rampant perverts with no self control, lesbians will not make your kids gay and gay men will not rape you just because you have a cute butt.
But isn't it then hypocritical to suggest we separate men and women showers and barracks? Unless you're saying that gay people are inherently more self controlled than straight and therefore more capable of showering and bunking with those they might be physically attracted to?
Yes, I do in fact believe that by a percentage more gay Americans are able to control themselves in uncomfortable situations seeing as they live in country where complete strangers are willing believe the absolute worst and treat them like monsters with no prompting. Being gay in this country makes you a target to random people that they will have to deal with at any given time. Think of getting stuck in an elevator with a fast food bag and a vegan, except the vegan is insulting you and making threats of violence.
I know of no man on man rape between fellow soldiers in all recorded military history, all military history. Including Spartan.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: [QUOTE] People need to get away from the idea that homosexuals are rampant perverts with no self control, lesbians will not make your kids gay and gay men will not rape you just because you have a cute butt.
But isn't it then hypocritical to suggest we separate men and women showers and barracks? Unless you're saying that gay people are inherently more self controlled than straight and therefore more capable of showering and bunking with those they might be physically attracted to?
Men and women don't always have separate shower and bunking facilities. I dated a girl who had spent time in Iraq. She was the only girl in her unit. She bunked with the guys, and used the same shower facilities. She showered at different times than the guys, but they all slept in the same room.
So, you were speaking from massive ignorance, right? Perhaps you'd like to back down?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: so the discrimination is based on physical stature and aggression, not sexual attraction?
No, it has more to do with how naked mens and naked womens in same place together is a rigidly ingrained cultural taboo and also related to issue involving naked mens and womens equals baby. Soon as we got coed YMCA showers you could make the (already tenuous) comparison. As it is, no dice.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Men and women don't always have separate shower and bunking facilities. I dated a girl who had spent time in Iraq. She was the only girl in her unit. She bunked with the guys, and used the same shower facilities. She showered at different times than the guys, but they all slept in the same room.
So, you were speaking from massive ignorance, right? Perhaps you'd like to back down?
Unless you're suggesting that your example above is the norm, please point out where I've displayed massive ignorance.
Why would I "back down" from a reasonable question which has, in fact, been reasonably responded to by others?
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Yes, I do in fact believe that by a percentage more gay Americans are able to control themselves in uncomfortable situations seeing as they live in country where complete strangers are willing believe the absolute worst and treat them like monsters with no prompting. Being gay in this country makes you a target to random people that they will have to deal with at any given time. Think of getting stuck in an elevator with a fast food bag and a vegan, except the vegan is insulting you and making threats of violence.
I know of no man on man rape between fellow soldiers in all recorded military history, all military history. Including Spartan. [/QB]
I appreciate your honesty and response, it will be interesting to see how this will bear out statistically over the next few years. Admittedly, it's not all that concerning to me but I do find it a compelling topic.
Not having studied all recorded military history, I'll take your word on the rape data. Although I'm doubting the Spartans would have had much of a documented intra-rank grievance process. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Were we this worried about sexual assault in the military back in March?
I was refering to how Sparta was largely homosexual in part to both genders being raised with only thier same sex beyond early childhood, somehow thier military operated just fine when filled with men whose only emotionally romantic connections with thier fellow warriors.
kmbboots, I dont personally believe anyone is more concerned about sexual abuse and missuse of authority in the military than they have been in the past, rather now that it is okay to say that a soldier is gay homophobic people in fragile positions will use this topic and others like it to discredit said soldiers without calling them catamites.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I know of no man on man rape between fellow soldiers in all recorded military history, all military history. Including Spartan.
Seriously?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
did you try googling, say, 'homosexual rape in military'
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: kmbboots, I dont personally believe anyone is more concerned about sexual abuse and missuse of authority in the military than they have been in the past, rather now that it is okay to say that a soldier is gay homophobic people in fragile positions will use this topic and others like it to discredit said soldiers without calling them catamites.
Right. I was referring to all the people who are so worried about the possibility of men being harassed by gay men. Where were they when women soldiers by the thousands were being harassed?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Reading Kmboots' link, perhaps this will solve a growing problem.
It seems that when women in the military say no to some men, these men assume that only a Lesbian would say no to them--so they report them under DADT.
Now these idiots won't ruin a woman soldiers career because she isn't interested in his 30 second joy ride.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
kmboots- women are still objects. It is natural for a man to have sex with a woman, regardless of her desires. But when it is a man abused, suddenly it is unnatural and must be avoided. How many women have had invasive patdowns at the airport and yet the national outcry comes when a man's junk is touched.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How many women have had invasive patdowns at the airport and yet the national outcry comes when a man's junk is touched.
In fairness, it's been some rather loud men that have amplified the outcry. "Don't touch my junk" is a pretty catchy rallying cry without a female equivalent. It's been guys that have shown up at the airport with cameras or wearing speedos. If there have been an equal number of outspoken women that have been ignored, I'd be curious to hear about it, but I don't think this was a sexist thing. Personally, I don't care about getting felt up at the security check point, but I would be bothered by my wife getting the same treatment. Maybe that just makes me paternalistic?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It seems that the whole shower question of why not separate gay men from straight men since we separate men from women can be answered culturally: In this society (and in many societies) we already separate men and women. School gym lockers, dormitory bathrooms, public restrooms, etc. It's a culturally accepted norm. I'm certain that the vast majority of soldiers can handle situations in which they must share resources with both genders.
There is no current societal norm for separating gay men from straight men, or gay women from straight women. Nor do I think there should be. And therefore it does not seem logical to create this standard in the military. Individually, people can choose solutions within the allowances of their community (military, school, etc). And in all cases, sexual harassment is illegal and should be recognized and punished accordingly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that homosexuals aren't capable of being rapists too, Achilles. They're human beings, which is rather the point of admitting them to the military in the first place...and that means they're capable of being rapists. It seems like you're getting a bit carried away.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Voila. I've actually been through several rape classes which discuss male on male rape. At one of them an NCIS agent said one of the major problems was they often go unreported, or unprosecuted, due to the shame felt by the victim, as well as worries that he might be thought of as gay for being raped. It's certainly an issue, though less publicized than male-on-female rape in the military.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
I know of no man on man rape between fellow soldiers in all recorded military history, all military history. Including Spartan.
That may be the dumbest thing ever said on this board.
quote: The number of men reporting assaults by other men also rose, to 173 in 2009 from 123 in 2008, a 40 percent increase.
Well, technically he only said he didn't KNOW of it, so... that's true, but only because he didn't look very hard.
Anyway, I'm just glad the law finally changed. I think all the "worries" are vastly overblown. After all, the exact same homosexuals are already IN the showers with the other men RIGHT NOW! (Not to mention the fact that shower facilities exist in the civilian world without problem.) I hardly think that having someone "come out" is going to cause them to suddenly start staring at their shower mates.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure Achilles meant there was no homosexual rape in military service, ever. I think it's more likely just a miscommunication, or a case of Achilles getting rather carried away on other points into some hyperbole that in retrospect he probably wouldn't mean when not in the heat of an argument. I think that's more likely simply because the idea of someone believing there is no homosexual rape, ever, in military history seems so unlikely to me that I'm seeking an alternative explanation than them believing it's literally true.
And...Kwea, I realize you're getting pretty intense about this, but I don't think even if Achille did mean exactly what was said, precisely, about homosexual rape, it would even approach being the dumbest thing said on the board. Or if it did that your saying so would be especially good politics, communication, what have you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: [qb]
I know of no man on man rape between fellow soldiers in all recorded military history, all military history. Including Spartan.
That may be the dumbest thing ever said on this board.
Oh I very much doubt that.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Note the "I" part of that, and that whole line was just to make the Spartan referance for reasons I have already clarified. My whole argument has been that for as long as there have been organizations of humans there have been homosexuals throughout those organizations military or otherwise, and as a species we have done pretty well despite it.
Sorry for the confusion/aggrevation, I really was just making an intro to the Sparta referance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, Achilles, then if by saying, "I know of no..." you weren't making a statement of anything except your own knowledge (ignorance, really, because it's such a well-known fact that homosexual rape does happen, homosexuals being human beings, I'm not sure why you said it.
The way you communicated didn't seem to make much sense at all, and still doesn't, really. To me at least. Frankly it comes off as some serious backpedaling and double-talk when you said something that was, by any standards I can think of, pretty absurd.
-----
It's also, to my mind, a form of prejudice in itself, an idea such as homosexuals aren't going to be rapists in the military, and haven't ever been. It's just more polite than thinking that they're all sexual deviants who just can't wait to get in the shower with you.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: kmboots- women are still objects. It is natural for a man to have sex with a woman, regardless of her desires. But when it is a man abused, suddenly it is unnatural and must be avoided. How many women have had invasive patdowns at the airport and yet the national outcry comes when a man's junk is touched.
More men are prone to conflict when certain lines are crossed and seem less embarrassed in hopes of vindication on the matter, I think that a man at the airport is more willing to raise a fuss when touched. I know of several stories of women speaking out about the TSA's actions, notably was a young woman who was stared at and chosen by a male agent at "random" to go through the scanner concievably because whe was well-endowed. And no one seems to have cared.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: It's also, to my mind, a form of prejudice in itself, an idea such as homosexuals aren't going to be rapists in the military, and haven't ever been. It's just more polite than thinking that they're all sexual deviants who just can't wait to get in the shower with you.
Being openly gay will not make more men rape other men, they have been there the whole time and I would find it a bit silly for someone to ignore the sexually charged abuse of power against women that has has happened much more often. Ive already expressed my opinion that only now worrying about what homosexual soldier may or may not do is a sign of homophobia and not rationality.
And yes, it is more polite than expecting every gay man to infatuated with every straight male simply because of congenitally pre-disposed organs.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Not related to the current subject of rape prevelance, but related to DADT: It appears as though gay people who were discharged will now be allowed to rejoin. Why would they want to. I think they should be allowed to reenlist and should never have been kicked out I just don't understand why they want to. If I had been treated that way by an employer, they would need to be some reparations to get me back. From what I have read, there is nothing like that planned. So having been treated like dirt, why go back? If I were making decisions, I would be in favor of some sort of benefit to coming back- like counting some percent of the time in civilian life towards their time served.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
What about accrued rank and benefits from before they were booted? if reenlisting means starting from scratch I doubt many people who had already put years in would be willing to go through the motions all over again.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Most of the plans assume you come back at the same place you were discharged- so if you did 5 years, were discharged, and the been in civilian life for two years, you come back at rank when discharged with 5 years experience. It sounds as though there was some discussion of having you come back at same rank, but with say 7 (or perhaps some amount between 5 and 7) years towards retirement and stuff. But that was rejected. Though I know the exact plan regarding reenlistment has not been determined.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because they still want to fight for their country? Wasn't that kind of the point of all this?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Patriotism after being abandoned would be a hard sell to a lieutenant-sargeant reenlisting at private. Besides most of our soldiers enlist for the benefits not intending a life-long career.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Scholarette, being a member of the armed forces is different than working for a company. It is their sense of duty and love of country that drives many to want to defend this country, regardless of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
Further, the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was created by politicians and abused by a few, but mostly run lawfully. Those who were dismissed have a right to be angry at the politicians who ordered it, and perhaps the individuals who outed them, but many do not have any anger at the military branch that did what they were ordered to do.
Although I would hope not, I do expect the next fight not to be Gay Marriage, but reinstating those who were kicked out with anywhere close to their last rank or privileges. The right makes a big point of "They broke the law to get here" argument against illegal immigrants. They will make the same argument for reinstatement.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Bear in mind that these people chose IN THE FIRST PLACE to serve in an organization that they knew would expel them if it found about about them. This suggests that they care more about it in the first place than the typical employee cares about their job.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Achilles,
quote:Being openly gay will not make more men rape other men, they have been there the whole time and I would find it a bit silly for someone to ignore the sexually charged abuse of power against women that has has happened much more often. Ive already expressed my opinion that only now worrying about what homosexual soldier may or may not do is a sign of homophobia and not rationality.
Now you're changing the subject. The subject I'm discussing with you was your strangely expressed notion that homosexual rape didn't exist in military history. It wasn't ignoring heterosexual rape, which is of course awful, or the many other contradictions involved in how we treat homosexuals which range from prejudiced to awful.
quote:And yes, it is more polite than expecting every gay man to infatuated with every straight male simply because of congenitally pre-disposed organs.
You missed the important word, though: prejudice. Perhaps you ought to treat, in terms of your expectations, homosexuals as you would any other human being and not bring anything to the table other than, well, expecting them to be sexually attracted in some degree to their own gender.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Because they still want to fight for their country? Wasn't that kind of the point of all this?
I guess I just don't see being willing to die for a country that treated me as a second class citizen, denied me my civil rights and spit on my willingness to serve. Which makes me think that gays who do join the army must be a whole lot more patriotic than I am.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: did you try googling, say, 'homosexual rape in military'
A word of advice don't do that with safe search turned off.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Not related to the current subject of rape prevelance, but related to DADT: It appears as though gay people who were discharged will now be allowed to rejoin. Why would they want to. I think they should be allowed to reenlist and should never have been kicked out I just don't understand why they want to. If I had been treated that way by an employer, they would need to be some reparations to get me back. From what I have read, there is nothing like that planned. So having been treated like dirt, why go back? If I were making decisions, I would be in favor of some sort of benefit to coming back- like counting some percent of the time in civilian life towards their time served.
This is probably the most I've ever talked about military service on line (I typically don't even mention my job), but I figured since I started I might as well get into it.
Not many people join the military merely for the sake of employment, or for the benefits. There are some that do, but they mostly stick to the Navy and Air Force. As a Marine especially, we have the worst equipment, the worst benefits, the worst housing, the hardest training, and by far the highest chance of injury and death than any other branch of service. Army infantry is pretty comparable, non-infantry Army has it a bit easier, but not much. Nobody joins the Marine Corps or Army and expects to be treated well, or eat good food, or make a lot of money.
Then again, not many people have patriotism as their main reason for joining, either. It's instilled during training, and later on, once firsthand experience shows us how much we owe our country for our way of life, and how much effort it takes to maintain the freedom we enjoy. But at the beginning of boot camp, anyway, most of the people I went with didn't give a rat's ass about the concept or reality of America.
It's something else... as an old Master Gunnery Sergeant told me and a group of marines as we were checking into our A school, "there's something f'd up about every one of you. You all gave up the chance to finish college (every one of us had at least a year of college, it's pretty common in my MOS) and get high paying jobs to join the Marine Corps. That's not a rational decision."
Almost every marine I know has father issues, either abandonment or a very abusive relationship. I think the main reason I joined, and the thing I love the most about it, is the presence of strong male role models. I've never felt quite comfortable as a man, never knew how to hold myself, how to act decisively, lead other people, speak with passion and confidence, talk to a woman, build a career. I've always felt awkward and clumsy, and never enjoyed sports.
Since my first drill instructor, I've had a series of older men who have taken an active interest in teaching me and building confidence. I still remember near the end of boot camp, walking by myself to the uniform exchange, I got ambushed by a group of new drill instructors out for blood. Standing there at attention, with 6 huge men jumping around, screaming in my face I felt completely relaxed, showing no emotion at all, and answered every question in a calm, loud, clear, dispassionate voice. I remember how empowering that felt, no know nothing outside my mind could phase me - 3 months prior to that, something like that would have left me shaking and stuttering and confused.
This has continued throughout my career, from various seniors taking me aside and saying a few quiet words, to this afternoon, my current workout buddy mentors me on the walk to and from the gym. I remember the first time I marched a platoon of 80 men, or the first time I was billeted as squad leader and lead 20 men through a FEX, making split second decisions and enforcing them in a calm, determined manner. These are things I never thought I'd be capable of doing only a few years ago.
In short, I love serving because I love the person it's made me, and because I love the men (and handful of women) I serve with. The community, the camaraderie, is unlike anything I've ever experienced, and it's finally made me a whole person.
I like the fact that when I get out, I'll get 36 months of free college, and a decent stipend during those years. But I could've had a much easier time just taking out a loan, then paying it off while living in comfort at a decent job. (and I've got more than enough brains and ambition to get a good job) I like the fact that my serving is some way makes my country a better place to live, but I could have had a much more direct (and probably greater) impact by being a social worker, politician, cop, librarian or any other type of civil servant. It's the environment of the military that makes me, and many others like me, want to serve.
Oh, and I really, really like guns. Like, being paid to shoot an M249 SAW was a pretty big incentive to join.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Thank you, that was really well written and insightful. I appreciate a glimpse into what brings someone toward enlistment.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
After reading this thread again... do you think posters here would be receptive to an "Ask a Marine" type thread? One where those of us who have had some military experience (Kwea, mal, others I'm sure) could answer questions that people have about it.
Because it strikes me that most people's understanding of the military is limited to movies (many of which are painfully wrong) and books and video games, and those mostly cover all the exciting bits, and none of the training or day to day lives of marines.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't know of any specific questions I have right now, but I definitely enjoy reading about the day to day life of people in the military. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I really enjoyed Dogbreath's response to my question before, so I would read the thread for sure. I don't know if I have any specific questions though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dogbreath, perhaps you should just start with a narrative and update it when you feel like it. That might be nice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Because it strikes me that most people's understanding of the military is limited to movies (many of which are painfully wrong) and books and video games, and those mostly cover all the exciting bits, and none of the training or day to day lives of marines.
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)