[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

stupendousman, I wonder if you realize how close you are to making standard PC for the poor male straight soldiers and arguing for women to wear burkas to protect the male soldiers from their sexual desires?

Not at all. Normally men are more sexually aggressive, but often times it's just as much of a source for frustration for woman. It's a solution that solves problems for both sexes.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I love it when people set out really bad examples of places most of us would never want to live, who have really crappy governments and often times fewer individual rights and ask why we can't be more like them in one way or another.

Damn... I keep forgetting the USA is perfect.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How can it "interfere" if you aren't in close quarters with anyone whose gender you happen to be sexually attracted to?

That's the solution the military found (separating people by sexual attraction) and by gosh it's seemed to work all these years. The problem is that some want to change things and make things worse, not better.

How can it interfere regardless? If you are sexually attracted to somebody, you'll be sexually attracted to them no matter whether they are wearing their regular clothes or jammies. It's not like female military members wear sexy frilly pink jammies to bed. Whether their eyes are closed or not really doesn't make a difference.

All they need is private areas for showering and changing clothes, it's really not that big a deal.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Damn... I keep forgetting the USA is perfect.

What I'd like to know is if this weird insecure thing that Americans do in wrapping themselves in their flag from time to time and going on about how they are the best is strictly an American thing, or does it exist in other countries too?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I'd like to know is if this weird insecure thing that Americans do in wrapping themselves in their flag from time to time and going on about how they are the best is strictly an American thing, or does it exist in other countries too?

Canadians do it all the time.

I. Am. Canadian.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, I don't understand why the thought of somebody being aroused is really an issue to anybody, so long as they don't act upon it. The real heart of the matter to me is acting upon these sexual desires.

How do you think a woman would feel surrounded by a company of fifty men who haven't had sex in 6-8 months? How do you think a woman feels in an office when a man looks at her breasts for an extended period of time?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How many homosexual attacks have their been in the military or anywhere for that matter? I would bet zero.

I'll take that bet. Pay up.

Or were you betting "zero" dollars because you know you're wrong?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That could be said about both homosexuals and heterosexuals serving in the military.

Absolutely correct. If heterosexuals are guilty of sexual misconduct, they are subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge from the military.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it is a good idea to repeal DADT if the majority of military leadership believes it is a good idea. I think they have the best idea of military culture and I trust their judgement on the most effective environment for recruitment, morale, and unit cohesion. They're not commissioned to resolve complex social issues and this is as it should be.

Otherwise... I think it's a bad idea. If your gender preference is more important to you than serving in the US Armed Forces, you may be more effective among civilians changing their hearts and minds.

True. If someone lets their gender preference so dominate their life that they can't function as a soldier they don't belong in the US military. Of course, this applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.


<edited to add>
Looks like Wiskedjak already pointed out that gender preference importance is as applicable to heterosexuals as it is to homosexuals.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Absolutely correct. If heterosexuals are guilty of sexual misconduct, they are subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge from the military.

And the same would go for homosexuals guitly of sexual misconduct. That should be enough for any heterosexuals worried about being sexually harassed by a homosexual.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Looks like Wiskedjak already pointed out that gender preference importance is as applicable to heterosexuals as it is to homosexuals.

This is why both heterosexuals and homosexuals are subject to disciplinary action for sexual misconduct. I would say in light of current law, it is more applicable to homosexuals who wish to join the military.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And the same would go for homosexuals guitly of sexual misconduct. That should be enough for any heterosexuals worried about being sexually harassed by a homosexual.

For some it may be enough, for others it may not. I'm guessing the military is interested enough in meeting recruitment targets that they will support policy favorable to that end.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Copenhagen... as in Denmark? Can you cite something to establish this? As of 1999, men and women didn't shower together in the military.
Tough Girls

Err, not really. Like I said, this is just from talking to people who’ve done it.

They don’t bunk and shower together when they’re on the base (which is most of the time), only when they’re doing these ‘field job’ thingies (where the ‘communal showers’ might be more like somebody flushing everyone else down with a big ol’ hose, rather than actual shower barracks).

For all I know, they might have changed it, too. I don’t think any of the people I know who used to be in the military have been so within the past five … no, six years, at least. Maybe more.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think men, denied sex, in close quarters with healthy, naked young women are going to be focused at all on their mission or their training. Same with a gay man in a room full of muscular, naked men. I'm not suggesting that gay men are any different than straight men. That's the problem - they aren't.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then I think *that's* a bigger problem than homosexuals in the military. All America's enemies need to do to disable the military is to roll out healthy, young women.

It sounds to me as though you think America's soldiers lack discipline.

Yeah, I agree with your assessment of stupendousman's posts. The general tenor of his posts--in this thread and the previous thread on this topic--have been bothering me for quite a while. His statements about American soldiers--he seems to focus almost exclusively on the male soldiers--suggest that American soldiers are slaves to their sexual desires and are unable to be disciplined and control their desires and thus must be coddled and protected from sexual "temptation" (his word, not mine). He does not seem to hold American soldiers in very high regard and I find that attitude of his both disrespectful and offensive.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, but wouldn't sexual desires and lusting after people of any gender occur whether you slept in the same room as these women or not? What is the difference? If it interferes it would interfere no matter what the living arrangements.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How can it "interfere" if you aren't in close quarters with anyone whose gender you happen to be sexually attracted to?

That's the solution the military found (separating people by sexual attraction) and by gosh it's seemed to work all these years. The problem is that some want to change things and make things worse, not better.

besson has a good point here, stupendousman.

Sexual desire and lusting occurs all the time, not just when someone is in "close quarters with anyone whose gender [they] happen to be sexually attracted to". (We wouldn't have pornography if people's sexual desires and lusting occurred only when they were in "close quarters with anyone whose gender [they] happen to be sexually attracted to".)

So, if a soldier's sexual desires and lusting interferes with their functioning when they are in "close quarters with anyone whose gender [they] happen to be sexually attracted to" it is also going to interfere with their functioning when they are NOT in "close quarters with anyone whose gender [they] happen to be sexually attracted to" because sexual desire and lusting occurs all the time.
(Unless you plan to argue that sexual desire is turned on and off by the mere presence of someone "whose gender [a person] happen to be sexually attracted to".)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Err, not really. Like I said, this is just from talking to people who’ve done it.

They don’t bunk and shower together when they’re on the base (which is most of the time), only when they’re doing these ‘field job’ thingies (where the ‘communal showers’ might be more like somebody flushing everyone else down with a big ol’ hose, rather than actual shower barracks).

For all I know, they might have changed it, too. I don’t think any of the people I know who used to be in the military have been so within the past five … no, six years, at least. Maybe more.

I should've caught this in your earlier post. Thanks for the clarification Oisín.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How can it interfere regardless? If you are sexually attracted to somebody, you'll be sexually attracted to them no matter whether they are wearing their regular clothes or jammies. It's not like female military members wear sexy frilly pink jammies to bed. Whether their eyes are closed or not really doesn't make a difference.

All they need is private areas for showering and changing clothes, it's really not that big a deal.

If it wasn't really a big deal, they'd likely have done that already. I'm guessing there's probably a lot you don't understand about why they do what they do. Especially at times like basic training where you are together 24/7.

[besson3c]

Maybe it's a big deal because of political fallout with people like yourself who feel strongly against it?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

The general tenor of his posts--in this thread and the previous thread on this topic--have been bothering me for quite a while. His statements about American soldiers--he seems to focus almost exclusively on the male soldiers--suggest that American soldiers are slaves to their sexual desires and are unable to be disciplined and control their desires and thus must be coddled and protected from sexual "temptation" (his word, not mine). He does not seem to hold American soldiers in very high regard and I find that attitude of his both disrespectful and offensive.

Bullsh*t. Most everyone has desires. When you remove temptation to act on those desires, you create additional focus. Do you really think that people don't think more about sex, and are tempted to act on their desires when an attractive member of their preferred sex is in close quarters? The answer of course is that if there isn't an attractive member of your preferred sex is in close quarters, you don't even have to contemplate having to discipline yourself not act. You can't act.

It's the same reason why rehab centers don't provide access to choose alcohol. People are there to train themselves to focus on their sobriety, but they don't need the added temptation which would take the focus off their primary goal.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Sexual desire and lusting occurs all the time, not just when someone is in "close quarters with anyone whose gender [they] happen to be sexually attracted to". (We wouldn't have pornography if people's sexual desires and lusting occurred only when they were in "close quarters with anyone whose gender [they] happen to be sexually attracted to".)

Does sexual desire normally increase or decrease in the presence of someone attractive whose gender you happen to be attracted to?

You can't really eliminate sexual desire in most people, but you can remove the temptation to act and scenarios which intensifies the desire by separating people from those whose gender you desire sexually. That's exactly why the military does things the way they do. They are doing everything they can to eliminate unnecessary distractions and temptations so that the soldiers can focus entirely on being better killers.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can't really eliminate sexual desire in most people, but you can remove the temptation to act and scenarios which intensifies the desire by separating people from those whose gender you desire sexually.

yep. you're practically preaching islam.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

yep. you're practically preaching islam.

I'm not. The military does. There's probably a reason why Islamic extremists are referred to as "militant". The problem is that they are supposed to be a loving religion, and not an organization focused on killing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I love it when people set out really bad examples of places most of us would never want to live, who have really crappy governments and often times fewer individual rights and ask why we can't be more like them in one way or another.

None of those countries required their citizens to carry on paying tax to a federal government once they've moved to another country. Except Australia.

None of those countries bans its citizens from gambling offshore. Except Australia.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I love it when people set out really bad examples of places most of us would never want to live, who have really crappy governments and often times fewer individual rights and ask why we can't be more like them in one way or another.

Bermuda is pretty awesome, actually. I'm looking into buying a home there.

[smacintush]

All I care about is maintaining our military's effectiveness. The problem with issues like this is that IF it DOES cause problems (and I'm not saying that it will) no one will do anything about it. Political correctness and "sensitivity" will guide them rather than a desire to do what actually works.

In life, sometimes there are problems that arise from laws designed to make things more fair and equal, and for the most part I don't have a problem with that (as long as the laws are ACTUALLY fair). When it comes to the military I think there is and should be an exception to that. Their role is too important and shouldn't be dumbed down in the name of political correctness or "sensitivity".

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

ike it or not, the fact is that most blokes who join the military aren't the type of blokes who would appreciate lathering up in a communal shower with peeps who're openly gay. Since they dropped the UK's version of DADT, they've been having major recruiting issues.

BS. I'm military, no one cares about gays looking at them. Perhaps your recruiting problems come from a pointless war in Iraq?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

All I care about is maintaining our military's effectiveness. The problem with issues like this is that IF it DOES cause problems (and I'm not saying that it will) no one will do anything about it. Political correctness and "sensitivity" will guide them rather than a desire to do what actually works.

In life, sometimes there are problems that arise from laws designed to make things more fair and equal, and for the most part I don't have a problem with that (as long as the laws are ACTUALLY fair). When it comes to the military I think there is and should be an exception to that. Their role is too important and shouldn't be dumbed down in the name of political correctness or "sensitivity".

Highly trained soldiers - trained at considerable expense - are being fired after the chain of command learns they are gay. (The day-to-day co-workers already know they are gay.) This waste of money and human potential is the exact opposite of "maintaining our military's effectiveness." If you care about military effectiveness, you support abandoning DADT.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Highly trained soldiers - trained at considerable expense - are being fired after the chain of command learns they are gay. (The day-to-day co-workers already know they are gay.) This waste of money and human potential is the exact opposite of "maintaining our military's effectiveness." If you care about military effectiveness, you support abandoning DADT.

Again, I personally have no reason to believe military leadership is interested in anything other than what would be the most effective policy for the military. You're supposing that anyone interested in military effectiveness would support abandoning a policy that removes gays from service, but how many highly trained- at considerable expense- gay people are being fired after the chain of command learns they are gay?

For example, if there are over 1.5 million people in active duty in any given year and less than 650 gay soldiers are fired annually, we're talking about less than half of one percent an impact in the overall scheme. If it is believed that DADT is the most effective policy for the military (and I have no reason to believe it isn't given that it is the current policy) and that the affect of repealing it will have more than half of one percent an impact in the overall scheme, anyone who cares about military effectiveness would support DADT.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Highly trained soldiers - trained at considerable expense - are being fired after the chain of command learns they are gay. (The day-to-day co-workers already know they are gay.) This waste of money and human potential is the exact opposite of "maintaining our military's effectiveness." If you care about military effectiveness, you support abandoning DADT.

You might be right. It might be time to go back to classifying homosexuality as a condition that is incompatible with service, as the tiny percentage it effects makes it harder for the military to effectively create the focus it needs without distraction.

If you really think that the brass are throwing away cash willy-nilly just because someone higher-up doesn't like gay people, despite the fact that the people in question are creating no problems, no distractions and no friction and are giving exemplary service, I think you probably need to think again. Just because it might not be causing a problem for you, doesn't mean that it doesn't for others.

[shifuimam]

I'm curious about something - why is it that DADT always has to do with gay males? It seems more likely that you'd have lesbians in the army rather than homosexual men, but nobody's talking about the threat that homosexual women pose to the female population in the military.

[OreoCookie]

That's a good point shif.
I suppose (and I'm serious) lesbian sex doesn't gross as many people (read: men) out as the thought of two guys having sex.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm curious about something - why is it that DADT always has to do with gay males? It seems more likely that you'd have lesbians in the army rather than homosexual men, but nobody's talking about the threat that homosexual women pose to the female population in the military.

That's just because of your misunderstanding of homosexuality. You're assuming that gay men are feminine and gay women are butches.

[stupendousman]

I think it's because men are typically more sexually agressive and more apt to act on their impulses than women.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think it's because men are typically more sexually agressive and more apt to act on their impulses than women.

Once again you show us how little you understand of the subject, with your typical false stereotyping.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Bermuda is pretty awesome, actually. I'm looking into buying a home there.

Speed limits!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

BS. I'm military, no one cares about gays looking at them.

But you're Canuckistani. So not proper military and not proper heterosexual.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Perhaps your recruiting problems come from a pointless war in Iraq?

The problems started in the mid 90s.

[hyteckit]

I've heard that the famous 300 Spartans were able to bring down 50,000 men from the Persian army, because the Spartans engage in gay sex acts before their battles.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Once again you show us how little you understand of the subject, with your typical false stereotyping.

I never said that was ALWAYS the case. I specifically said "typically."

Do I really need to provide a study or something that shows that men are typically more likely to engage in that behavior than women? Explaining that something is statistically more likely to happen isn't an example of stereotyping unless you imply that it's always the case, which I didn't do.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Canadians do it all the time.

I. Am. Canadian.

Except we Canadians actually have something to be proud about.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Except we Canadians actually have something to be proud about.

Maple syrup?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Maple syrup?

No. Canadian bacon.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I've heard that the famous 300 Spartans were able to bring down 50,000 men from the Persian army, because the Spartans engage in gay sex acts before their battles.

Spartan warrior training consisted of grown men training adolescent males and taking them as lovers. Because heterosexual pre-marital sex was strictly forbidden, they would take these boy lovers until they married later in life. This would not only be against DADT in the military, it is pedophilia and against the law in the US. Besides, most of these men would grow up and take a wife living lives as heterosexuals. Why is it leftist zealots always invoke pedophilia when discussing gays anyway?

It should be noted that effeminate boys were particularly offensive to this culture.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No. Canadian bacon.

That was a horrible movie.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's a good point shif.
I suppose (and I'm serious) lesbian sex doesn't gross as many people (read: men) out as the thought of two guys having sex.

Two questions:

1. Who has been assuming men other than men talking about DADT from their own perspective and y'all?
2. Aren't women also more grossed out by two men having sex than two women?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But you're Canuckistani. So not proper military and not proper heterosexual.

Drop dead.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Spartan warrior training consisted of grown men training adolescent males and taking them as lovers. Because heterosexual pre-marital sex was strictly forbidden, they would take these boy lovers until they married later in life. This would not only be against DADT in the military, it is pedophilia and against the law in the US. Besides, most of these men would grow up and take a wife living lives as heterosexuals. Why is it leftist zealots always invoke pedophilia when discussing gays anyway?

It should be noted that effeminate boys were particularly offensive to this culture.

Say what?

Didn't realize there were underage boys and girls in the US military.

Why do crazy conservative zealots always bring up pedophilia when discussing gays anyway?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Say what?

Didn't realize there were underage boys and girls in the US military.

Why do crazy conservative zealots always bring up pedophilia when discussing gays anyway?

pbbbbllltttttt

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who has been assuming men other than men talking about DADT from their own perspective and y'all?

Shif was the first one to mention the way lesbians are treated differently. The whole discussion is centered around guys -- because most of us here are guys.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Aren't women also more grossed out by two men having sex than two women?

I wouldn't know if women are more grossed out seeing two guys making out, but two women kissing, I think, is more universally accepted and something many guys find sexy (perhaps they imagine it's foreplay for a threesome), even though it's the same thing as two guys kissing. Shif's comment pointed in this direction: in my opinion, one of the main reasons for some people trying to keep DADT is the thoughts that come to the minds of some when they hear someone (a man!) they serve with is gay. They picture them making out with another guy and are repulsed. They are less repulsed (or in many instances even aroused) when they think of two beautiful women making out.

The whole debate is centered around this, the gays serving in the military can potentially do all the things people like stup mention: they can enjoy looking at the other guys of their platoon in the shower, enjoy spending lots of time with other people of the same sex, etc.* DADT, i. e. others (officially) not knowing that some of their fellow soldiers are gay, prevents their phantasies from running wild. Policies shouldn't be based on the lowest common denominator.


* Of course, I'm being facetious here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

* Of course, I'm being facetious here.

Until one thinks back to Salty's dorm wrestling escapades.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think it's because men are typically more sexually agressive and more apt to act on their impulses than women.

Maybe outside of the military, but men acting on their sexual impulses inside the military - heterosexually or homosexually - are not tolerated. I'd say that this is how it is in any modern military, including those that permit openly homosexual individuals to join.

I also think that, along with people considering gay male sex more "yucky" than gay female sex, men may find their masculinity and manliness threatened by the idea of another man being sexually attracted to them. There is much more of a stigma against being a gay male compared to being a gay female.

I find it a little amusing that the anti-gay people here are so convinced that a gay male will take one look at any naked dude and immediately pop a boner and try to do the guy in the butt. I'd guess that gay males are just like everyone else - they're not attracted to every single person they come across, and they're more than capable of controlling themselves when necessary.

Unless unwanted buttsecks has been a problem in countries where gays are permitted in the military, I don't really think it's much of an issue.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

.

I find it a little amusing that the anti-gay people here are so convinced that a gay male will take one look at any naked dude and immediately pop a boner and try to do the guy in the butt. I'd guess that gay males are just like everyone else - they're not attracted to every single person they come across, and they're more than capable of controlling themselves when necessary.

Unless unwanted buttsecks has been a problem in countries where gays are permitted in the military, I don't really think it's much of an issue.

Exactly, but that won't stop certain people who seem to be fascinated with gay sex from repeatedly attempting to provide "logical" rebuttals.