Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2009, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

My point was that neither were allowed to have any kind of sexual relations while on duty, and that the military's plans where put in place specifically to allow for virtually no chance for distraction via sexual stimulation while on duty.

And *my* point that that homosexuals aren't allowed to have their preferred type of sexual relations, even while off duty, while heterosexuals are.

stupendousman · Mar 10, 2009, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And *my* point that that homosexuals aren't allowed to have their preferred type of sexual relations, even while off duty, while heterosexuals are.

...since doing so reveals that they are unable to meet the criteria needed to to fulfill the military's goals. The same is not true for heterosexuals. We aren't dealing with "equal" things here.

nonhuman · Mar 10, 2009, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

...since doing so reveals that they are unable to meet the criteria needed to to fulfill the military's goals. The same is not true for heterosexuals. We aren't dealing with "equal" things here.

How does having anal sex affect the militaries ability to do anything?

Doofy · Mar 10, 2009, 01:06 PM

lpkmckenna · Mar 10, 2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Of course, you don't sleep in quarters supplied by Apple, wear full apparel supplied by Apple, eat, sleep, and live with Apple employees, If your wife is pregnant and you'd like to pop home to see her, Apple will likely allow you to do so much more easily than the military. The military is nothing like any other job. It is a complete lifestyle change. You eat when they tell you, sleep when they tell you, make your bed, prepare and wear your uniform exactly how they tell you, and your entire life may be placed on the line on demand. There is no sex during basic training or AIT and your freedom of movement and other civil rights are severely hampered. Your pay can change without notice. Your contractual agreements can change without consent and the justice you receive falls under a military judicial sect, unlike civilians. Anyone who tries to equate the two is either an idiot or a recruiter.

Now you're just baiting me. Yes, the military is a complete lifestyle change. No, you don't lose your rights. Movement may be temporarily restricted for operational reasons, but you are more than compensated with earned leave, danger pay, and so on. I'm not sure why you want to describe military life like it's slavery, but it isn't true and doesn't help your argument about gay soldiers either.

In regards to "contractual agreements," the shitty way that the US is currently treating its troops is part of the overall contraction of rights taking place because of 9/11 and the Iraq War. It's not a military issue per se, but an aspect of the current cultural insanity.

In regards to sex during basic training or operation, it's officially condemned, but in practice it's worse than band camp, and punishments are extremely rare. There's always the "barracks mattress," usually a girl or two on course who loves the male:female ratio of army life, or lonely military wives.

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2009, 08:00 PM

I'm beginning to think that the only right soldiers have is to not be seen naked by a gay guy.

ebuddy · Mar 10, 2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Now you're just baiting me. Yes, the military is a complete lifestyle change. No, you don't lose your rights. Movement may be temporarily restricted for operational reasons, but you are more than compensated with earned leave, danger pay, and so on. I'm not sure why you want to describe military life like it's slavery, but it isn't true and doesn't help your argument about gay soldiers either.

Yes you lose your rights. It could be argued that at times military life is exponentially worse than slavery. Some have called it Hell. As an avid Apple user, I'm hoping none of their employees have ever felt like they were in hell.

In regards to "contractual agreements," the shitty way that the US is currently treating its troops is part of the overall contraction of rights taking place because of 9/11 and the Iraq War. It's not a military issue per se, but an aspect of the current cultural insanity.

So insane that it is only at this time and in times of war that you'll ever really see a decline in the number of "don't ask, don't tell" discharges. Otherwise, I'm not real sure how the "shitty" treatment of our troops is consistent with your assertion that they don't lose their rights.

In regards to sex during basic training or operation, it's officially condemned, but in practice it's worse than band camp, and punishments are extremely rare. There's always the "barracks mattress," usually a girl or two on course who loves the male:female ratio of army life, or lonely military wives.

All this does is affirm that there are already problems with sexual misconduct in the military.

I reject the notion by many that this issue exists exclusively as the result of homophobia. I think I did a pretty good job of illustrating why the notion does not hold up. Again, I trust the military has the military's best interest at heart. Others are arguing in the best interest of homosexuals and while I can appreciate the perspective, I don't see why the military has to forge ahead of society. I want the military to focus on the best interest of the military. After all, it's not a civil right to join.

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2009, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

All this does is affirm that there are already problems with sexual misconduct in the military.

So, there's a problem with sexual conduct between heteros in the military and the military is trying to address this problem by preventing homosexuals from having sex?

ebuddy · Mar 10, 2009, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm beginning to think that the only right soldiers have is to not be seen naked by a gay guy.

To lbkmckenna's credit, I may have in fact been a little pessimistic with regard to the military experience. The last thing I would want to do is discourage one of our young posters from joining the armed services, but I would also want them to be fully aware of the stark differences between what they're doing now and what they'll be doing under the watchful eye of their unit.

I think it is unfair to marginalize someone for inheriting one of the most basic forms of modesty, bolstered by centuries of upbringing in civilized society, by calling him a homophobe or reducing the argument to "being seen naked by a gay guy". Like I said to shifuiman; it seems a man with gay friends, able to hug them, go to parades with them in a show of solidarity, take a drag from their cigarette, work with them, and support their right to wed is a homophobe only by virtue of the fact that he's not comfortable showering with them.

ebuddy · Mar 10, 2009, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, there's a problem with sexual conduct between heteros in the military and the military is trying to address this problem by preventing homosexuals from having sex?

No. I'm guessing they're using the fact that there's already a problem with sexual misconduct between heteros to determine they'd rather not compound the problem by allowing open homosexuality. Like I said, I'm not in their minds.

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2009, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No. I'm guessing they're using the fact that there's already a problem with sexual misconduct between heteros to determine they'd rather not compound the problem by allowing open homosexuality. Like I said, I'm not in their minds.

Ah, I understand. They recognize that they have a problem with sexual misconduct, but, rather than address that problem, they're using it as an excuse to discourage homosexuality.

stupendousman · Mar 10, 2009, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

How does having anal sex affect the militaries ability to do anything?

Heterosexuals usually aren't distracted by the thought of having anal (or any other kind ) sex with each other. You aren't going to have a desire to have sexual relations with the person laying in the bunk next to you. You are focused on killing and blowing stuff up.

stupendousman · Mar 10, 2009, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm beginning to think that the only right soldiers have is to not be seen naked by a gay guy.

...or anyone else who might be sexually attracted to them.

It's one of the only rights that they'd be asked to give up that wasn't based on being required to achieve the goal of creating better killing machines.

Macrobat · 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

How does having anal sex affect the militaries ability to do anything?

Simple. The military pays for all medical. Including if they were to get AIDS on active duty.

When I was in the USAF (Pararescue) I was actually fined because I was injured in an off-duty skiing accident in CO.

When you are in the military, many of your civil rights are suspended (for instance search and seizure) - I was considered "government property" and I had damaged myself through unsanctioned actions of my own.

Fact of life.

Homosexuality is high-risk behavior.

As a matter of said fact: heterosexual behavior can also be punishable. Just ask any non-married military female (and her partner, if she names him) who winds up pregnant. This is why it is necessary to get your commander's permission to marry, btw.

The mindset of military members is much that of football teams. DADT protects the gays, not the heterosexuals, as there would be alot of injuries going around - if you follow my drift. Not that I condone it. It's simply a fact of life. Given that not ONE of you professes to have served, you have no clue.

Fact is homosexuals have the EXACT same rights as heterosexuals in the military. Heterosexuals can be prosecuted in the military for Public Displays of Affection. What you do behind your own closed doors is your own business. In the USAF, at least, we lived in dormitories, with private rooms for E-5 and above, roommates for ranks below - not barracks.

You can "tsk, tsk" and "tut-tut" all you want, but anonymous midnight blanket parties are notoriously non-actionable. Think "A Few Good Men's" Code Red.

OldManMac · Mar 11, 2009, 09:53 AM

I did serve, in the Air Force, with several males I knew to be homosexual. This was in the late 60s - early 70s. I wasn't worried about somebody looking at me while showering, or masturbating because they had seen me nude. It never occurred to me, but then again, I don't have a lot of the sexual hang ups most people, including several here on the board, seem to have.

It still never ceases to amaze me how such a large percentage of the population lets such a small percentage control their beliefs and actions.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Heterosexuals usually aren't distracted by the thought of having anal (or any other kind ) sex with each other. You aren't going to have a desire to have sexual relations with the person laying in the bunk next to you. You are focused on killing and blowing stuff up.

Really? Heterosexuals don't think about having sex with other heterosexuals? You've never been distracted by the thought of sex with some hot chick? I sure have.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Simple. The military pays for all medical. Including if they were to get AIDS on active duty.

Amazingly, AIDS can be transmitted via the vagina just as well as the anus. Thank you for proving the point that sex education is important!

Homosexuality is high-risk behavior.

No. Unprotected sex is high risk behavior. Regardless of the gender of the person you're having it with or the orifice you are using for it.

As a matter of said fact: heterosexual behavior can also be punishable. Just ask any non-married military female (and her partner, if she names him) who winds up pregnant. This is why it is necessary to get your commander's permission to marry, btw.

This sounds like a reason to encourage homosexuality in the military. Last I checked homosexuals are at much lower risk than heterosexuals to get pregnant.

The mindset of military members is much that of football teams. DADT protects the gays, not the heterosexuals, as there would be alot of injuries going around - if you follow my drift. Not that I condone it. It's simply a fact of life. Given that not ONE of you professes to have served, you have no clue.

Oh, I get it. The reason we discriminate against gays is to protect them! It's for their own good! I'm pretty sure I've heard that argument before about other groups of people in the past. Seems to me that it never really worked out so well for those peoples.

Seriously. Take this argument further.

Fact is homosexuals have the EXACT same rights as heterosexuals in the military. Heterosexuals can be prosecuted in the military for Public Displays of Affection. What you do behind your own closed doors is your own business. In the USAF, at least, we lived in dormitories, with private rooms for E-5 and above, roommates for ranks below - not barracks.

Except that what you just said is blatantly false. 'What you do behind your own closed doors' is not your own business if it happens to involve another member of the same sex.

And do you really think that straight soldiers are going to be prosecuted for talking about their weekend conquests with the other guys in their unit? They will if it happens to have been a man.

You can "tsk, tsk" and "tut-tut" all you want, but anonymous midnight blanket parties are notoriously non-actionable. Think "A Few Good Men's" Code Red.

You know, homosexuals should be thanking people like you for looking out for them. They really just can't be given responsibility for their own lives. We should do everything we can to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

You know what would really be good for them? If we rounded them up and gave them their own special places to live in safety. At the very least we should make them wear special identifying badges so that they know who it's safe to flirt with without fear of reprisal from an offended straight person.

Actually, they'd probably just be better off dead, huh? Why don't we just put them all out of their misery so they don't have to worry about not being able to serve in the military any more?

Macrobat · Mar 11, 2009, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Amazingly, AIDS can be transmitted via the vagina just as well as the anus. Thank you for proving the point that sex education is important!

No. Unprotected sex is high risk behavior. Regardless of the gender of the person you're having it with or the orifice you are using for it.

This sounds like a reason to encourage homosexuality in the military. Last I checked homosexuals are at much lower risk than heterosexuals to get pregnant.

Oh, I get it. The reason we discriminate against gays is to protect them! It's for their own good! I'm pretty sure I've heard that argument before about other groups of people in the past. Seems to me that it never really worked out so well for those peoples.

Seriously. Take this argument further.

Except that what you just said is blatantly false. 'What you do behind your own closed doors' is not your own business if it happens to involve another member of the same sex.

And do you really think that straight soldiers are going to be prosecuted for talking about their weekend conquests with the other guys in their unit? They will if it happens to have been a man.

You know, homosexuals should be thanking people like you for looking out for them. They really just can't be given responsibility for their own lives. We should do everything we can to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

You know what would really be good for them? If we rounded them up and gave them their own special places to live in safety. At the very least we should make them wear special identifying badges so that they know who it's safe to flirt with without fear of reprisal from an offended straight person.

Actually, they'd probably just be better off dead, huh? Why don't we just put them all out of their misery so they don't have to worry about not being able to serve in the military any more?

Your entire post is BS.

You serve? Sorry, no one pries into what goes on behind closed doors, you're full of it. And Vaginal sex only transmits if the woman is HIV-positive, and if she were HIV positive, she would NOT be in the military in the first place. Catch a friggin clue.

Your PC social mores notwithstanding, these are the facts of LIFE in the military. Rail against it and post cute little put-downs about it all you want. If you are openly homosexual in a military unit you are GOING to get hurt - period.

It's not pretty, and it's not right, but it IS a fact.

Macrobat · 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

I did serve, in the Air Force, with several males I knew to be homosexual. This was in the late 60s - early 70s. I wasn't worried about somebody looking at me while showering, or masturbating because they had seen me nude. It never occurred to me, but then again, I don't have a lot of the sexual hang ups most people, including several here on the board, seem to have.

It still never ceases to amaze me how such a large percentage of the population lets such a small percentage control their beliefs and actions.

Wasn't common knowledge tho, now was it? Just because you may be personally more enlightened doesn't mean the rank and file is and, IF you were being honest you KNOW that what I said is the blatant truth.

I am not defending it - please don't get me wrong, I have gay people as friends, too. Hell, I worked in the nightclub industry for more than 15 years and my sister-in-law is in a committed relationship with her lesbian lover. Yes, it IS prejudice, but you cannot simply change the rules and MAKE it go away. Yes, the military is fully integrated racially now, but the SAME things happened when that was forced upon it, as well. Difference is, the percentage of different races in the military made it NECESSARY to do this, the percentage of gays is <2% and is simply NOT worth the turmoil. The plain, simple fact of the matter is that the military mindset is simply not "enlightened" enough for this step right now.

I am just pointing out that it IS a fact.

It's wrong, I agree, but it WILL lead to more people getting beat up and more people being court-martialed. In other words, more headaches in force-readiness for the military. Yes, they will get prosecuted, but that is a VERY small comfort to someone laid up in the hospital.

All you social engineers need to keep that in mind.

stupendousman · Mar 11, 2009, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Really? Heterosexuals don't think about having sex with other heterosexuals? You've never been distracted by the thought of sex with some hot chick? I sure have.

Not one standing next to me, in my military barracks wearing no clothes. The military separates heterosexuals by gender to ensure that's not an issue.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 11, 2009, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And Vaginal sex only transmits if the woman is HIV-positive

Ummmm...

shifuimam · 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And Vaginal sex only transmits if the woman is HIV-positive, and if she were HIV positive, she would NOT be in the military in the first place. Catch a friggin clue.

Wait, what?

HOW DO YOU GET AIDS?

You don't actually "get" AIDS. You might get infected with HIV, and later you might develop AIDS. You can get infected with HIV from anyone who's infected, even if they don't look sick and even if they haven't tested HIV-positive yet. The blood, vaginal fluid, semen, and breast milk of people infected with HIV has enough of the virus in it to infect other people.

http://www.aids.org/factSheets/101-w...html#anchor251

HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is the virus that causes AIDS. This virus may be passed from one person to another when infected blood, semen, or vaginal secretions come in contact with an uninfected person’s broken skin or mucous membranes*. In addition, infected pregnant women can pass HIV to their baby during pregnancy or delivery, as well as through breast-feeding. People with HIV have what is called HIV infection. Some of these people will develop AIDS as a result of their HIV infection.

http://www.cdc.gov/Hiv/resources/qa/qa1.htm

A woman can get HIV from an infected man through vaginal intercourse. HIV develops into AIDS over time.

While the occurrence of HIV infection is higher with anal (receptive) sex compared to vaginal (penetrative) sex, a woman doesn't have to be HIV-positive to get HIV from a man with HIV. That makes no sense at all. Please, please, please, for the love of God, educate yourself on how sexually transmitted diseases are spread. Do some research or talk to your doctor...just do something to ensure you're getting your facts straight.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Not one standing next to me, in my military barracks wearing no clothes. The military separates heterosexuals by gender to ensure that's not an issue.

Do guys in the military just hang out naked all the time? Awesome. Do you guys compare erect penis size and stuff? I mean, it makes sense that one might be uncomfortable when another naked person is standing right next to them while they themselves are naked. But that's just human nature, unless you don't have any problem with another man's penis bumping into you while he's running around the barracks naked...as long as he's straight.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I think it is unfair to marginalize someone for inheriting one of the most basic forms of modesty, bolstered by centuries of upbringing in civilized society, by calling him a homophobe or reducing the argument to "being seen naked by a gay guy". Like I said to shifuimam; it seems a man with gay friends, able to hug them, go to parades with them in a show of solidarity, take a drag from their cigarette, work with them, and support their right to wed is a homophobe only by virtue of the fact that he's not comfortable showering with them.

Modesty isn't something that should discriminate against gender or sexual orientation.

If you feel that your penis, vagina, butt, or breasts are things that shouldn't be seen by others, then you should take any measures you can to prevent them from being seen by anyone, since there's no real knowing who likes seeing what. I mean, let's say you take one of the aforementioned gay friends, and you go to a public pool together. After swimming, there are a bunch of men in the locker room showering, fully nude. Would you suddenly be unwilling to get in the shower and rinse yourself off, just because you know your friend is gay? I'd like to think you'd respect him enough to recognize that he's not going to be sexually aroused willy-nilly by every man he sees, since he's, you know...an adult.

We're not talking about two dudes showering in a tiny shower stall in an apartment. We're talking about a relatively large group all showering in a big room, changing clothes in a big room, etc.

I define "homophobia" as an irrational fear or terror of homosexuals, what they do, and what they might do to you. You can be uncomfortable showering in front of someone...however, that's something you can get over with time, just like how someone might be uncomfortable having sex with another person (even heterosexually) for the first time, or how some people are uncomfortable taking a crap in a public bathroom.

That's different from being genuinely afraid that someone might see a body part and be aroused by it. If I wear a low-cut top, sure - the thought that some pimply-faced, pasty geek is going to masturbate later to visions of my breasts is a little gross, but I'm not afraid that they might come up and motorboat in my cleavage without my permission.

Likewise, while the thought of a gay man catching a quick glimpse of your penis might make you uncomfortable, you shouldn't be afraid or overly concerned that he's going to do anything upon seeing your penis. That's where it turns irrational - the idea that a gay man can't contain his sexual urges, or that he'll turn into a penis-eating crazed hornball as soon as he sees someone else take their panties off.

Doofy · Mar 11, 2009, 01:12 PM

Chicks and flamboyant blokes in the army? You'll get more of this:

Is that what you want? Because that's what's gonna happen.

Had PVT England not been there, there'd have been no "sexual charge" in the place and chances are the abuse wouldn't have happened - PVT England wouldn't have been "performing" for her male colleagues and they wouldn't have been "performing" for her.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Your entire post is BS.

Um. No.

You serve? Sorry, no one pries into what goes on behind closed doors, you're full of it. And Vaginal sex only transmits if the woman is HIV-positive, and if she were HIV positive, she would NOT be in the military in the first place. Catch a friggin clue.

No I don't serve, and I didn't say that anyone pries into what goes on behind closed doors. However the fact is that a straight soldier can talk freely about his off-duty conquests and a gay soldier can't. That's the whole point of 'don't ask don't tell': gay soldiers aren't allowed to tell the same simple facts that straight soldiers are and do.

It's true that vaginal sex only transmits HIV if the woman is HIV positive. However the same is true of anal sex: HIV is only transmitted if your partner (male or female, whether you're having anal or vaginal sex) is HIV positive. HIV does not spontaneously generate from the act of anal sex. So while your statement there was factually true, it was also completely irrelevant and added nothing of value to the conversation.

Also, who said that she has to be in the military? Are you saying that straight soldiers never go off base and have sex with civilian women? If so, you are massively deluded.

Your PC social mores notwithstanding, these are the facts of LIFE in the military. Rail against it and post cute little put-downs about it all you want. If you are openly homosexual in a military unit you are GOING to get hurt - period.

It's not pretty, and it's not right, but it IS a fact.

When did anyone ever say that wasn't the case? All anyone is saying is that gay people should be allowed to take that chance if they so please. I would go further and say that any soldier who would attack his fellow soldier for any reason whatsoever is far more damaging to our military than allowing homosexuals to serve.

Wiskedjak · Mar 11, 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Vaginal sex only transmits if the woman is HIV-positive, and if she were HIV positive, she would NOT be in the military in the first place. Catch a friggin clue.

So ....
HIV emerges spontaneously between homosexuals?

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So ....
HIV emerges spontaneously between homosexuals?

I think it's like the way flies spontaneously generate in piles of dung.

Macrobat · Mar 11, 2009, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So ....
HIV emerges spontaneously between homosexuals?

And just precisely WHERE did you infer THAT?

Please, if you can't argue honestly, please feel free to abstain.

The risk of HIV contraction is far higher with anal sex.

And yes, any service member who was HIV-positive from vaginal sex would be subject to the same military discipline.

Why don't you just keep arguing about everything else except the subject at hand?

Macrobat · Mar 11, 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Um. No.

No I don't serve, and I didn't say that anyone pries into what goes on behind closed doors. However the fact is that a straight soldier can talk freely about his off-duty conquests and a gay soldier can't. That's the whole point of 'don't ask don't tell': gay soldiers aren't allowed to tell the same simple facts that straight soldiers are and do.

It's true that vaginal sex only transmits HIV if the woman is HIV positive. However the same is true of anal sex: HIV is only transmitted if your partner (male or female, whether you're having anal or vaginal sex) is HIV positive. HIV does not spontaneously generate from the act of anal sex. So while your statement there was factually true, it was also completely irrelevant and added nothing of value to the conversation.

Also, who said that she has to be in the military? Are you saying that straight soldiers never go off base and have sex with civilian women? If so, you are massively deluded.

When did anyone ever say that wasn't the case? All anyone is saying is that gay people should be allowed to take that chance if they so please. I would go further and say that any soldier who would attack his fellow soldier for any reason whatsoever is far more damaging to our military than allowing homosexuals to serve.

And I don't disagree with your last point, but the facts of life are the facts of life.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And I don't disagree with your last point, but the facts of life are the facts of life.

So you're implicitly condoning treason? Because that's what it is when an American citizen attacks an American soldier.

It's more important that we not rock the boat than that we stick up for our values?

Macrobat · Mar 11, 2009, 03:55 PM

Uh, no, it's not treason for one soldier to attack another. It is assault under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

If it were treason for a citizen to attack a soldier, half of the State of Washington would be in prison.

Point is the rocking of the boat is not necessary in order to complete the mission.

And, I'm sorry, who is this "our" in your "our values?" You just said - you don't serve.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Uh, no, it's not treason for one soldier to attack another. It is assault under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

I'll concede that point on it's technical merits. But I would still say that it should be considered treason for one US soldier to (knowingly, willingly, and without provocation) attack another.

Point is the rocking of the boat is not necessary in order to complete the mission.

Depends on what you consider the mission to be. I consider the mission of the US military to be defending the people, the republic, and the Constitution of the United States. I also consider discrimination, harassment, and violence against other people for something so minor and insignificant as who they have sex with to be an affront against all three of those things. For the military to engage in—or even simply look the other way in the face of—these things is to abandon it's mission. So yes, rocking the boat is necessary in order to complete the mission.

And, I'm sorry, who is this "our" in your "our values?" You just said - you don't serve.

What does that have to do with anything? Only soldiers can have an opinion on how the military should be run? I was talking about our values as Americans. The values our country was founded on. Values which I, for one, hold dear. And those values don't say anything very good about looking the other way while my fellow citizens are attacked and oppressed by the very military whose duty it is to protect them.

Macrobat · Mar 11, 2009, 04:11 PM

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. It has been explained ad nauseum that the military is NOT "American society," no matter how much you might like it to be.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. It has been explained ad nauseum that the military is NOT "American society," no matter how much you might like it to be.

I never said it was. But it is still an instrument in the hands of American society. It is still part of the face that we, as Americans, present to the world. Our soldiers are still our fellow citizens, our friends, and our family, and I, for one, would like to see them all treated with the proper respect and dignity. Even if they're gay.

Just because you're in the military doesn't mean that you're exempt from civilian criticism. It doesn't mean that the values and mores of civilian society have no influence over you. The military exists for the benefit and at the behest of the people.

Doofy · Mar 11, 2009, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by George Orwell (maybe)

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Highlighted.

If one is campaigning for anyone other than rough men to do violence for you, then quite simply one is not equipped to understand why rough men are required for the job.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 04:27 PM

Well I suppose it is appropriate that a Brit would quote George Orwell as an authority on how to run things.

My only problem here is that you seem to think it's impossible to be both rough and gay. Mindless stereotypes are just that.

Macrobat · Mar 11, 2009, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I never said it was. But it is still an instrument in the hands of American society. It is still part of the face that we, as Americans, present to the world. Our soldiers are still our fellow citizens, our friends, and our family, and I, for one, would like to see them all treated with the proper respect and dignity. Even if they're gay.

Just because you're in the military doesn't mean that you're exempt from civilian criticism. It doesn't mean that the values and mores of civilian society have no influence over you. The military exists for the benefit and at the behest of the people.

And all that means exactly Jack and Shyte to the poor homosexual in a foxhole or a bunk somewhere when some bunch of dumbasses throws a blanket over his head while he is sleeping and hits him repeatedly with a laundry bag full of batteries. End result, he is hospitalized or worse and cannot HOPE to identify his assailants.

As I have said before, I do not condone it, but it WILL happen.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And all that means exactly Jack and Shyte to the poor homosexual in a foxhole or a bunk somewhere when some bunch of dumbasses throws a blanket over his head and hits him repeatedly with a laundry bag full of batteries.

As I have said before, I do not condone it, but it WILL happen.

You're completely missing, or ignoring, my point. I don't deny that this happens, nor do I deny that you and I agree that it's wrong. Where we differ is how it should be dealt with. You say get rid of the gays, I say get rid of the people who would attack the gays.

Macrobat · Mar 11, 2009, 04:31 PM

Please point out to me where I said "get rid of the gays." What I said was that DADT protects the gays from this sort of behavior.

So, I would say, you have been arguing a point all along that was never presented in the first place.

Doofy · Mar 11, 2009, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

My only problem here is that you seem to think it's impossible to be both rough and gay. Mindless stereotypes are just that.

I've been in enough gay clubs to know it's not a mindless stereotype.

nonhuman · Mar 11, 2009, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Please point out to me where I said "get rid of the gays." What I said was that DADT protects the gays from this sort of behavior.

So, I would say, you have been arguing a point all along that was never presented in the first place.

DADT doesn't protect gays from this sort of behavior, it protects the military/government from having to acknowledge that there's an issue here. As a policy it's stating that gay people are not welcome to become soldiers. Saying that they can join up, but only so long as they promise not to do or say anything gay is just the cowards way of saying that we don't want to have to think about homosexuality.

stupendousman · Mar 11, 2009, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Do guys in the military just hang out naked all the time? Awesome.

I'd guess they would be naked in the same room several times a day.

Likewise, while the thought of a gay man catching a quick glimpse of your penis might make you uncomfortable, you shouldn't be afraid or overly concerned that he's going to do anything upon seeing your penis. That's where it turns irrational - the idea that a gay man can't contain his sexual urges, or that he'll turn into a penis-eating crazed hornball as soon as he sees someone else take their panties off.

So then you're generally anti-sexually segregated changing/bathroom/bathing facilities and that most people would not have a problem with this standard? If you want to argue with other women by telling them that they are being irrational when they would decline to change their clothes and expose their naked body to strange men, then I wish you luck. That's essentially where your flawed logic leads you.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 11, 2009, 06:38 PM

I just don't understand the argument that on the one hand, the military is not supposed to represent American society, but the on the other hand, military practices are somehow limited by larger social norms like "not getting undressed in front of strangers." I think there are plenty of social norms that the military successfully drums out of people during training.

stupendousman · Mar 12, 2009, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I just don't understand the argument that on the one hand, the military is not supposed to represent American society...

How is it not? Just because about 2% or less of it's members don't freely express their sexuality?

... but the on the other hand, military practices are somehow limited by larger social norms like "not getting undressed in front of strangers." I think there are plenty of social norms that the military successfully drums out of people during training.

It's not "getting unresssed in front of stangers". I don't think most would have a problem getting undressed in front of a stranger who was a straight member of the same sex - "stranger" or not.

Most "social norms" that the military tries to drum "out of people" are done so because the alternative creates less than optimal circumstances for focus on the primary mission. That's not the case with forcing people to get naked in front of those who find themselves sexually aroused by members of their own gender.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 12, 2009, 12:39 AM

Sure it is. If personnel are habituated to that activity which you find so objectionable, it creates more optimal circumstances for focus on the primary mission.

stupendousman · Mar 12, 2009, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Sure it is. If personnel are habituated to that activity which you find so objectionable, it creates more optimal circumstances for focus on the primary mission.

Causing them to be "habituated to that activity", which violates a person's rights, does nothing to make the men in question better killers.

How will forcing them to expose their naked bodies to people who may be sexually attracted to them cause them to kill and fight better? Making them exercise, follow the chain of command, and other forms of control are necessary to instill the discipline specific to creating a cohesive fighting unit. Creating a scenario where the military specifically allows for one of the biggest distractions available to humans, and does so by violating someone else's rights isn't a very good example of something necessary to ensure success of this life or death mission. It would have to be done DESPITE making for less effective training and group morale.

ebuddy · Mar 12, 2009, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Ah, I understand. They recognize that they have a problem with sexual misconduct, but, rather than address that problem, they're using it as an excuse to discourage homosexuality.

Since common sense seems to escape you, I'll consider this an impasse. I can both understand and appreciate the source of our disagreement, but this is just counter-productive BS. They address the problem to the best of their ability Wiskedjak. I can see that you're not really as concerned for the military as you are the civil rights of homosexuals so it follows that any information I provide on why the military is more interested in their own benefit than pioneering new social ground for homosexuals would be lost on you.

Wiskedjak · Mar 12, 2009, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Causing them to be "habituated to that activity", which violates a person's rights, does nothing to make the men in question better killers.

But, we've just been told that soldiers *have no rights*. If two people are equally good a being a soldier, it shouldn't matter if one happens to be gay. If they're supposed to "jump on a grenade" when told to do so, they should be able to shower with other men, some of whom might be gay, without getting squeamish.

shifuimam · Mar 12, 2009, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I'd guess they would be naked in the same room several times a day.

My point is that they're not going to just be standing around stark naked - they're going to be focused on some task at hand, like putting on a fresh pair of panties in the morning.

So then you're generally anti-sexually segregated changing/bathroom/bathing facilities and that most people would not have a problem with this standard? If you want to argue with other women by telling them that they are being irrational when they would decline to change their clothes and expose their naked body to strange men, then I wish you luck. That's essentially where your flawed logic leads you.

Personally, I think that our culture is far too sexually charged, and we have a problem with equating all nudity with sexual arousal. It's one of the reasons why I think that family nudist resorts are great, because they allow young children to realize that nudity is not exclusively sexual.

Your reference to "strange men" is a little flawed as well. These are men that you know, right? I mean, they're other men in your unit or whatever in the military, so you know them and become friends with them (or at least get to know them on a professional level). So no, it's not the same as some stranger walking in and asking a girl to undress for him. It's much more along the lines of going camping with a bunch of friends or coworkers.

You're still convinced that a gay man is going to be so fixated on your penis that it's all he's going to be able to think about while he's showering. I'm just not seeing any evidence of that. Seems to me that a gay man in a shower is going to be like everyone else - washing his hair, getting clean, and leaving.

My best friend is a straight male who used to have a crush on me. Yet I'd have no problem changing in front of him (and have, actually), because I know he's not going to suddenly get sexually aroused by it. Why are you so certain that a gay man has no choice but to be sexually aroused while around a bunch of straight men in a military setting?

Perhaps you've been listening to the Village People a bit too much...?

I'm also curious to know how old you are. I can understand why a guy in his late teens would think that everyone is going to be getting aroused all the time, since that happens to people at that age.

However, in the adult world, that just isn't what happens. My boyfriend, who I am living with and sees me every day, doesn't universally get a big boner every time he sees me changing my clothes or getting in the shower. In fact, many times, he doesn't even really notice, because he's busy doing other things.

This is someone who I'm in an active relationship with, and even he is not so obsessed with sex that he sits and waits for me to get naked so that he can stare at my body.

OreoCookie · Mar 12, 2009, 09:12 AM

@shifuimam
The problem of the critics is not caused by anything factual, they don't like the idea (gay) Sergeant John Doe `fantasizes having gay sex with them' -- which they find repulsive. Hence, plentiful allusions are made with pedophilia, incest and whatnot.

The arguments and objections are really similar to segregation, only that sexual orientations are not as obvious to the naked eye.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 12, 2009, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Causing them to be "habituated to that activity", which violates a person's rights, does nothing to make the men in question better killers.

How will forcing them to expose their naked bodies to people who may be sexually attracted to them cause them to kill and fight better? Making them exercise, follow the chain of command, and other forms of control are necessary to instill the discipline specific to creating a cohesive fighting unit. Creating a scenario where the military specifically allows for one of the biggest distractions available to humans, and does so by violating someone else's rights isn't a very good example of something necessary to ensure success of this life or death mission. It would have to be done DESPITE making for less effective training and group morale.

You're confusing cause, effect, and correlation.