'I may be straight, but I'm not narrow'

The live feed from today's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hearing just ended. The curious can watch it here. (Warning, this thing went on forever: 2h35.)

The hearing went better than I expected, insofar as the Democratic witnesses, Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, and Marine Staff Serg. Eric Alva utterly outspoke Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones and Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, both of whom testitified (poorly, and in some places, damn near incoherently) on behalf of Republicans.

Donnelly managed, somehow, to answer every question from both the right and the left with, "Sexual urges would prevent unit cohesion." Jones, when asked whether or not he thought homosexuality was immoral, replied, "No, but if I'm 6'8" and I want to be a fighter pilot, I can't." Both think a gay-friendly military would bring on the end of the world.

As this hearing evidenced, the social conservative arguments for preserving DADT, letting the Department of Defense write its own policy, or banning gay service, range from paper-thin to non-existent. The only obstacle I see to passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act—the bill that would repeal DADT and implement a non-discrimination policy—is good ole' fashion homophobia.

Hopefully the 111th Congress makes repealing DADT a top priority, so that our military can get back to risking the lives of straights and gays in pointless wars.

John Cloud at Time.com wrote a great recap of the policy, and ended with this:

Do we want a military where Americans are not forced to lie about their most important emotional bonds?

I wrote about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" here.

Comments

Fluffy | July 23, 2008, 5:10pm | #

If sexual urges would damage unit cohesion, isn't the presence of women in the armed forces 20 times as bad as the presence of homosexuals? [Assuming that there are 20 times as many straights as gays in the military overall.]

reactionary | July 23, 2008, 5:14pm | #

Yes.

lunchstealer | July 23, 2008, 5:15pm | #

"No, but if I'm 6'8" and I want to be a fighter pilot, I can't."

When they make an airplane where the cockpit (ahem) can accomodate a heterosexual pilot but not a homosexual pilot, this will cease to be the third stupidest analogy ever.

Episiarch | July 23, 2008, 5:21pm | #

So if this passes, when the drill Sergeant says "I'll bet you're the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around! I'll be watching you!", he may actually be correct.

J sub D | July 23, 2008, 5:27pm | #

so that our military can get back to risking the lives of straights and gays in pointless wars.

A not so minor quibble. The military has not been risking those young American lives in pointless wars. The government has in Iraq. With bi-partisan support.

I also don't concede Afghanistan is pointless.

hrh king friday xiii | July 23, 2008, 5:27pm | #

bravo!

Randolph Carter | July 23, 2008, 5:35pm | #

"The curious can watch it here. (Warning, this thing went on forever: 2h35.)"
Is there a different link for the bi-curious?

Other Matt | July 23, 2008, 5:37pm | #

When they make an airplane where the cockpit (ahem) can accomodate a heterosexual pilot but not a homosexual pilot, this will cease to be the third stupidest analogy ever.

Depends. If homosexuality is an innate trait such as height, it's indicating that there are innate factors which preclude service so it's perhaps the seventh or eighth stupidist analogy.

I can throw in my $0.02 as a prior military officer and military academy grad that the concept of "don't ask/don't tell", as well as the entire prohibition on homosexuals serving in the military, is completely stupid and unnecessary. "Conduct unbecoming" would cover a guy walking through the base with assless chaps, if that's a concern.

Other Matt | July 23, 2008, 5:39pm | #

A not so minor quibble. The military has not been risking those young American lives in pointless wars. The government has in Iraq. With bi-partisan support.

Good point, but it is the military establishment that has been the primary force behind the continued stupidity concerning homosexuality and military service. So, while congress has perhaps been the source of them being placed in danger, the military establishment is the force behind the disproportionate amount of heterosexuals put in danger.

creech | July 23, 2008, 5:40pm | #

An active duty soldier (a sergeant) told me his objection: "We have group showers in the Amry. It would be just as uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the female troops had to shower with straight men."

Matthew | July 23, 2008, 5:40pm | #

And how is this a libertarian issue, Mike?

billhilly | July 23, 2008, 5:46pm | #

Matthew | July 23, 2008, 5:40pm | #

And how is this a libertarian issue, Mike?

How is it not?

rana | July 23, 2008, 5:47pm | #

Episiarch | July 23, 2008, 5:21pm | #

"So if this passes, when the drill Sergeant says "I'll bet you're the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around! I'll be watching you!", he may actually be correct."



LMAO... Ahh, you made my day Epi.

Kolohe | July 23, 2008, 6:20pm | #

If sexual urges would damage unit cohesion, isn't the presence of women in the armed forces 20 times as bad as the presence of homosexuals?

I said this on the previous thread. Donnelly has essentially been making this very argument for nearly twenty years now.

Ayn_Randian | July 23, 2008, 6:21pm | #

"We have group showers in the Amry. It would be just as uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the female troops had to shower with straight men."

For all that Soldier knows, the "buddy" next to him IS ALREADY salaciously looking at him whilst showering. There ARE gay and bisexual Soldiers in the military...it's a fact of life (and they tend to be overrepresented in the female Officer Corps, but I digress...)

Also, that sergeant is flattering himself a bit much, isn't he? Just because said Sergeant is a dude doesn't mean he's an attractive dude. Nor is the gay guy going to try to rape him or jump him in the shower.

Jennifer | July 23, 2008, 6:28pm | #

An active duty soldier (a sergeant) told me his objection: "We have group showers in the Amry. It would be just as uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the female troops had to shower with straight men."

So if his concern is that someone might look at him and be turned on, there's two conclusions to reach: 1) The guy has a high opinion concerning the amount of lust the sight of his naked body would inspire in anyone prone to enjoying sex with men; and 2) he'd have no problem showering in the presence of butch lesbians.

Tell Sergeant Hottie that, while it is indeed annoying to have guys hit on you when you're not interested in them, I've been dealing with that since I was thirteen and if I could handle the stress of that PLUS algebra class PLUS my unrequited lust for Duran Duran, I'm sure today's macho soldiers are also strong enough to deal with it.

Elemenope | July 23, 2008, 6:56pm | #

it's a fact of life (and they tend to be overrepresented in the female Officer Corps, but I digress...)

Is there a crime in the UCMJ called "failing miserably to fraternize with a superior officer" or is there a story behind this?

Paul | July 23, 2008, 6:58pm | #

Personally, I kind of subscribe to the 'Gays too Precious to Risk' policy.

Tell Sergeant Hottie that, while it is indeed annoying to have guys hit on you when you're not interested in them, I've been dealing with that since I was thirteen and if I could handle the stress of that PLUS algebra class PLUS my unrequited lust for Duran Duran

Sing it, sister. I hear ya.

Paul | July 23, 2008, 7:02pm | #

unrequited lust for Duran Duran

But seriously...admit it, Jennifer. You lusted after Duran Duran precisely because they were sexually non-threatening.

Ayn_Randian | July 23, 2008, 7:03pm | #

Elemenope - it's probably a cliche that there are bunch of lesbos in the Army for a reason: it tends to be true, to a certain extent. It seemed to come to a point where a surprisingly high number of female officers (MAJ and above) I met were either "well-known closet cases" or pretty much out. I actually met a major whose female partner used to follow her from duty station to duty station...everyone knew it and no one gave a shit.

There are obvious reasons: to attain rank in a "man's Army" you pretty much have to be able to "keep up with the boys"...and the "more butch and manly" of lesbians were able to do that. Also, the whole "no kids and family" thing helps.

Paul | July 23, 2008, 7:07pm | #

I actually met a major whose female partner used to follow her from duty station to duty station...everyone knew it and no one gave a shit.

In polite circles she would be referred to as a "travelling companion".

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 7:09pm | #

"Hopefully the 111th Congress makes repealing DADT a top priority....."?????????????

This plea does not trouble anybody?

Paul | July 23, 2008, 7:10pm | #

This plea does not trouble anybody?

No, Congress troubles me, not any particular plea.

Ayn_Randian | July 23, 2008, 7:16pm | #

In polite circles she would be referred to as a "travelling companion".

I did not know this. A Soldier is generally at a Duty Station for three years, so I am not sure that traveling companion is the appropriate euphemism. Perhaps "platonic homemaker"?

libertymike - what is so disturbing about said plea? It would take Congress about five minutes to do it, so it's not like they can't get right back to screwing us all over

Ben | July 23, 2008, 7:16pm | #

Jennifer--How many of those guys who you were fending off since age 13 were ogling you while you showered?

I think gays should be allowed in the military at all levels, but I'm not going to blame that guy for not wanting to be ogled while he showers. Throw me (a straight male) into showers with females and you better believe I would be ogling the shit out of them.

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 7:19pm | #

Paul-

As a general rule, libertarians do not want Congress to get busy, right? To the extent that there is a libertarian case for Congress getting busy, I submit that DADT repeal would not be a "top priority".

Paul | July 23, 2008, 7:24pm | #

Libertymike, I was being facetious. No, DADT is not a top priority.

However, having learned a thing or three in this here forty....mmm....years of life... keeping Congress distracted with shiny things such as baseball steroid use investigations tends to keep real damage from occurring.

Dave | July 23, 2008, 7:25pm | #

"For all that Soldier knows, the "buddy" next to him IS ALREADY salaciously looking at him whilst showering. There ARE gay and bisexual Soldiers in the military"

But there's a huge difference between knowing that someone in your unit somewhere might be gay and knowing that a particular individual IS gay. Whether or not I think he wants me, I would (justifiably) be pretty damn uncomfortable showering with a gay man. I doubt ANYONE who's actually served in a ground combat unit doesn't buy the unit cohesion argument.

Along those lines, the only reason homosexuality in the military is a problem is because of the (extreme) discomfort it can cause among straight people in certain situations. Thus, (and I hate to praise Clinton, but) the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is actually the best way for all sides to deal with the issue.

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 7:26pm | #

Ayn Randian-

See my post to Paul.

Yes, of course, there is no reason to have DADT and Congress shuld repeal it. My point is that there are far more important rules, regulations and laws that need to be repealed before DADT gets axed.

J sub D | July 23, 2008, 7:26pm | #

Hopefully the 111th Congress makes repealing DADT a top priority....."?????????????

This plea does not trouble anybody?

Not THE top priority, but A top priority. You have a problem with equal rights for gays? Eradicating legalized inequality for people doing nothing wrong, should be a high prioity.

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 7:29pm | #

Paul -

Sorry and good point about the distraction.

I don't think that Mr. Riggs was being facetious, do you?

Paul | July 23, 2008, 7:33pm | #

Along those lines, the only reason homosexuality in the military is a problem is because of the (extreme) discomfort it can cause among straight [latently gay] people in certain situations.

Fixed.

Paul | July 23, 2008, 7:35pm | #

Libertymike... I actually think Riggs was being facetious as well. He's just a whipper-snapper intern, though. So we gotta cut the rookie a break.

Ayn_Randian | July 23, 2008, 7:38pm | #

I would (justifiably) be pretty damn uncomfortable showering with a gay man. I doubt ANYONE who's actually served in a ground combat unit doesn't buy the unit cohesion argument.

You're assuming he'd be ogling you. Secondly, to turn your argument on its head, just because he may be attracted to MEN doesn't mean he's attracted to you (a man).

Also, good "No True Irishman Ground-Pounder" argument.

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 7:41pm | #

J sub D-

Do you know how many arguments I have had with DOMA disciples? How many times I have called "conservative" radio talk shows to do battle with the anti-Goodridge forces? I live in Massachusetts-I know one of the attorneys who worked in behalf of one of the plaintiff gay couples. Besides, I have cited Lawrence v Texas, several times on these here blogs, in support of the propositions tht (1) gvt. has no business regulating sexual behavior and (2) judicial activism is good if it invalidates legislation that messes with one's rights.

In addition-who here is more radically anarcho-individualist than moi?

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 7:48pm | #

J sub D-

Eradicating legalized theft must be, has to be, of greater prioity than delivering the death knell to DADT. Eradicating legalized theft is more important than ending the drug war. Sorry LP, but eradicating legalized theft is even more important than ballot access.

Douglas Gray | July 23, 2008, 7:51pm | #

Why not have separate gay sqadrons, regiments, and quarters?

No, seriously, Fluffy is right, look at how many women are hit on, what a boondoggle it has been for the military to deal with rapes, sexual harrassment, etc.

Closet gays in the military is a non-issue by comparison.

tim | July 23, 2008, 7:51pm | #

I would (justifiably) be pretty damn uncomfortable showering with a gay man.

You are so lacking in confidence in yourself and your sexuality that you can't deal with one wink from another guy.

I am presently presently working for a guy who is a Lieutenant Colonel in Air Force - his comment to me was that no one cares and DADT gets in the way because good people get booted out because of idiots like you anonymously turn them in for thinking that they were "oogling" you in the shower. Grow the fuck up.

tim | July 23, 2008, 7:52pm | #

One other comment - as a gay man - the last thing I am doing is 'oogling' another guy in a public shower ... i mean seriously - have you seen them? Most need a few dozen miles on the treadmill...

joe | July 23, 2008, 7:54pm | #

Sadly, Ms. Donnelly and the so-called "Center for Military Readiness" are as passionately opposed to women being allowed to serve their country as they are to gay people.

So the "women...20 years argument" doesn't quite work.

LarryA | July 23, 2008, 7:54pm | #

An active duty soldier (a sergeant) told me his objection: "We have group showers in the Amry. It would be just as uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the female troops had to shower with straight men."

Straight male sergeants who don’t want to shower with women? Not the Army I remember.

I submit that DADT repeal would not be a "top priority".

I disagree. If Congress finds out how easy it is to repeal DADT, maybe they’ll get into the habit. Most of the best things Congress could do involves repealing stuff.

I doubt ANYONE who's actually served in a ground combat unit doesn't buy the unit cohesion argument.

I don’t. (Air cavalry officer, Vietnam.)

My father was a white officer commanding a Quartermaster Corps transport company in WWII. Afterward I remember someone asking about his “negroes.” He replied, “They could keep a deuce-and-a-half* on a dirt road at night and bust enemy troops and tanks with Ma-Deuce**. That made them good soldiers.”

* Two and a half ton truck. ** M-2 Browning heavy machinegun.

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 7:54pm | #

Paul-

I have changed my mind-Mr. Riggs was being facetious. I should have applied Heller: the prefatory clause can't contradict the operative clause.

Elemenope | July 23, 2008, 7:55pm | #

Eradicating legalized theft must be, has to be, of greater priority than delivering the death knell to DADT. Eradicating legalized theft is more important than ending the drug war. Sorry LP, but eradicating legalized theft is even more important than ballot access.

Um...

Why?

joe | July 23, 2008, 7:56pm | #

I don't have a military background, but it strikes me that encouraging military personnel to become adept at misleading and being evasive with their comrades would be pretty bad for unit cohesion, too.

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 7:57pm | #

LarryA-

Agreed that the best thing Congress could do is just start repealing stuff.

Paul | July 23, 2008, 7:58pm | #

You're assuming he'd be ogling you. Secondly, to turn your argument on its head, just because he may be attracted to MEN doesn't mean he's attracted to you (a man).

Yeah, like I'd be uncomfortable showering with this person, 'cause if she scoped me in the shower, there'd be no way she could keep her hands off of the P-man.

Paul | July 23, 2008, 7:59pm | #

become adept at misleading and being evasive with their comrades would be pretty bad

But only if they're not asked... or something.

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 8:02pm | #

Elemenope-

Even a hard core anarcho-individualist like me is capable of setting priorities. Seriously, if the magic libertarian leprechaun appeared and granted me one congressional repeal, I would, without hesitation, go for the income tax.

Paul | July 23, 2008, 8:02pm | #

Agreed that the best thing Congress could do is just start repealing stuff.

That's a negatory, libertymike. They've been repealing the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments for years now, where'd that get us?

Paul | July 23, 2008, 8:05pm | #

, if the magic libertarian leprechaun appeared and granted me one congressional repeal

wow, I'm impressed you could make up your mind that quick.

I'd be all like "Oh... oh wait. Ok how about... oh no, surely... Oh but what about... Ok, don't rush me now... what about the...no... not the most important. Ok, uhh, can I take a week to think about it?"

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 8:06pm | #

Elemenope-

Sorry, I didn't directly respond to your "why". My response: Cut off the beast's oxygen.

Ayn_Randian | July 23, 2008, 8:12pm | #

libertymike - what about a repeal, or at least a rewrite, (to make shit like Wickard obsolete of the Commerce Clause?

Ayn_Randian | July 23, 2008, 8:12pm | #

whoops. insert ")" after 'Wickard'

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 8:14pm | #

Paul-

Even though you did not specifically mention it, I am sure that you would have included the ninth in your list notwithstanding the unfortunate reality that there are some here, learned and otherwise, who are not very favorably disposed to what I consider to be the crown jewel of the bill of rights.

bob | July 23, 2008, 8:17pm | #

I was hoping that Barr could talk some sense in to the more libertarian leaning republicans, but today I learned of this revolutionary new Turnout Tool the RNC released.

Courtesy of it's magnetic surface on one side, from now until November, this innovative and practical John McCain Turnout Tool can be useful for hanging notes on your refrigerator and reminding you of the primary reason to vote for the RNC's nominee.

But in November, it becomes even more useful! It allows you the use of both hands in the ballot box, freeing you of the inconvenience of holding your nose while hanging your chad.

Order yours today!

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 8:21pm | #

Ayn Randian-

I betcha Rhenquist thought he was doing that in Lopez. Wickard also sucks, for me, in that it represents just one of hundreds of cases where Douglas and Black were not in dissent and should have been-but they were new dealers.

Just Sayin' | July 23, 2008, 8:27pm | #

Straight male sergeants who don’t want to shower with women? Not the Army I remember.

remember it's women in the *army* were talking about here. for every Jessica Lynch there's a dozen Lydie Englands.

the air force, OTOH.

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 8:32pm | #

Elemenope-

BTW, relative to my 8:14 post, you are not one of the "and otherwise".

Episiarch | July 23, 2008, 8:37pm | #

Any guy who doesn't like gay guys ogling him is an idiot. It's a fucking compliment, and one that chicks generally don't do because in the game of heterosexuality, guys pursue the girls.

My favorite gay guy line to me, after referring to a water pump: "I'd like to pump you."

libertymike | July 23, 2008, 8:46pm | #

Epi-

Any chance that the guy is a poster/blogger here?

jimmy smith | July 23, 2008, 8:56pm | #

In the old army, which I am most familiar, SGMs stuck to stealing from the clubs, they didn't worry about being 6'8". That bundle of cash and a chest full of self awarded ribbons said it all. Last thing they wanted to do was get out of the shadow of the PX.

Fluffy | July 23, 2008, 9:22pm | #

The group showers thing is a group shower problem, and not a gay problem.

I hate group showers and it doesn't matter WHO is in them. Straight guys, gay guys, Martians, whoever.

Because I hate them so much, I have avoided them as much as possible.

So on my first day in the Army, I would have to grow up a bit and get over my group shower problem.

On the first day that gays are in the Army, some other folks will have to grow up a bit and get over their group shower problem.

"No no no, it's not that group showering takes getting used to, it's the whole ogling thing." I bet the first group shower that sergeant took, however many years ago, he experienced a general discomfort that had nothing to do with gays. He got over that discomfort then, he can get over his fantasy discomfort now.

And I think the whole "ogling" thing is being grossly exaggerated in some hysterical and neurotic peoples' minds. If I was in a coed shower, I actually would NOT ogle the women, particularly if I had to deal with them every day. If anything, I would be paranoid about making sure I didn't do anything that could remotely be construed as ogling. And most people would be pretty much the same. You know that feeling you get in a line of urinals at the ball game, when you want to make sure no one thinks you're looking to either side? That's the way people would be in the showers, folks.

Episiarch | July 23, 2008, 9:37pm | #

Hmm, Fluffy, you are insane. Put a group of straight dudes in a shower with fit straight chicks and...

libertymike, the dude who did that was years ago. He looked a lot like you though.

Haven't you all done some sort of "let's all shower together" idiocy when younger? I though it was de riguer.

David | July 23, 2008, 9:38pm | #

For those interested, the hearing is about to air on C-SPAN2 at 9:50pm ET.

Jim Bob | July 23, 2008, 10:41pm | #

It's time for DADT to go. Homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military; let the people who are offended or disgusted by homosexuality not join the military. There. Problem solved.

Jim Bob | July 23, 2008, 10:45pm | #

Fluffy,

If we ever manage to progress to that kind of coed showering, I don't ogling will be much of an issue. Sort of like the coed shower scene from Verhoeven's version of Starship Troopers.

Mike Laursen | July 23, 2008, 11:15pm | #

The answer is so simple. Turn one branch of the armed forces into the openly gay one. Hmm, now which one would be the obvious choice?

The Wine Commonsewer | July 24, 2008, 12:08am | #

Turn one branch of the armed forces into the openly gay one. Hmm, now which one would be the obvious choice?

Not the Corpsmen, though.

The Wine Commonsewer | July 24, 2008, 12:10am | #

My favorite gay guy line to me, after referring to a water pump: "I'd like to pump you."

My favorite gay guy line to me.....

Get real, you're not my type.

:-)

The Wine Commonsewer | July 24, 2008, 12:15am | #

Fluff, I'd be checking out the chicks in the group shower, guaranteed. But, I don't think it's coming to that.

Speaking of group shower phobias, my boy is going into junior high, so I had a talk with him about that. I think he'll be okay, some guys I knew weren't. That's why I wanted to talk about it.

When I was in basic in Uncle Sam's Misguided Children we had so dam little time to shit, shower, and shave that I don't recall even noticing that there were any other guys in the shower.

Later, things were much more private, even though the showers were not terribly private. The timing was.

Anita Dickens-Hyde | July 24, 2008, 12:36am | #

Let's see now. The group shower thing is a problem because some soldiers would rather be ogled by someone not known to be gay than by someone known to be gay?

Show some courage, dudes! Does our society really want to be defended by someone who can't get over a case of the heebie-jeebies regarding the willies?

Jennifer | July 24, 2008, 12:46am | #

In summary: it's okay to ask heterosexual guys to face the threat of loss of life and limb to defend their country, but the threat of a gay guy looking at their whangdoodles is just too traumatizing to consider.

Adam | July 24, 2008, 3:54am | #

On the shower argument, I've been in the Army a few years now and have run into relatively few group showers. They're mostly limited to training barracks. A lot of soldiers don't live in barracks (esp officers and NCOs), and most of the barracks that units live in are much nicer than training barracks (i.e. single or double rooms, group bathroom down the hall but with individual showers).

A bit off topic, but since a lot of people think the ogling argument is stupid, what is the justification for separate men's and women's bathrooms and locker rooms generally? Sure one gender might ogle the other (hard in a bathroom with separate stalls), but shouldn't those people just get over it as some people seem to be saying?

joe | July 24, 2008, 8:08am | #

Paul,

But only if they're not asked... or something.

Seriously, let's walk through this:

"'Sup, Donny? Hey, is that a wedding ring?"

OK, who asked and who told?

Reinmoose | July 24, 2008, 8:49am | #

non-military guy here.

Aight, so if I were in a shower with a whole bunch of (let's assume attractive) women, I'd probably have trouble hiding my excitement, especially if I were of the age that most guys join the military. If I was particularly trying NOT to get noticed (which I don't know how you'd do in this case, except maybe shave your body and tuck it between your legs...), wouldn't I have a difficult time? This would be embarassing if I weren't "supposed" to have this reaction, no? Nobody's ever gotten an erection at an inappropriate time?

So generally, wouldn't you think that gay guys might feel uncomfortable in the shower with men who they're attracted to whom they know don't want their attention? For those who are embarassed about it, might there be some other arrangement that could be made, or at minimum, some sympathy?

Elemenope | July 24, 2008, 10:38am | #

So generally, wouldn't you think that gay guys might feel uncomfortable in the shower with men who they're attracted to whom they know don't want their attention? For those who are embarassed about it, might there be some other arrangement that could be made, or at minimum, some sympathy?

That argument might hold water if it were the gay guys who were trying to *not* be in the Army. But since it's the inverse situation, I'm not sure how it applies.

It is an interesting observation nonetheless.

Why Certainly | July 24, 2008, 10:48am | #

"When they make an airplane where the cockpit (ahem) can accomodate a heterosexual pilot but not a homosexual pilot, this will cease to be the third stupidest analogy ever."

For entertainment, will you please give us the first two most stupid analogies ever?

R C Dean | July 24, 2008, 11:22am | #

I would (justifiably) be pretty damn uncomfortable showering with a gay man.

I honestly don't get this. I don't think I would be uncomfortable showering with women or with gay men. The first time or two it would be a little odd, but having been to nude beaches, it is amazing how quickly it becomes no big deal to be naked around people.

travman67 | July 24, 2008, 12:02pm | #

Well the worst public "private" moment I had in the Army was going to the shitter at the RUBA (Rotational Unit Bivoac Area) in Fort Irwin, CA. I walked in to the latrine and found about 10 toilets lined up; dress right, dressed- with no stalls, partition, dividers, doors- nothing. Let me tell you what, laying an egg with a neighbor is one of things that made me wonder Y My Retarded Ass Signed Up (U.S. Army backwards acronym)

travman67 | July 24, 2008, 12:04pm | #

oh and then there were the females remarking on the long, low sink...(the latrines were identical) you do the math

Chris Rock | July 24, 2008, 12:08pm | #

"If they wanna fight, let em fight. Cuz I ain't fightin'!!"

LarryA | July 24, 2008, 12:40pm | #

remember it's women in the *army* were talking about here. for every Jessica Lynch there's a dozen Lydie Englands.

Male mantra: “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.”

Snappyback | July 24, 2008, 2:05pm | #

Active-duty solider: "It would be just as uncomfortable for me to have a gay man potentially looking my body over in a sexual way as it would be if we had coed showers and the female troops had to shower with straight men."

So, let me understand: This guy is willing to run ashore in a hail of gunfire, willing to face maimings and traumatic amputations and hideous tortures in service to his country, but the idea of another guy sneaking a furtive glimpse at his bare ass has him clutching his pearls in terror?

Are you sure "I'm a big pussy" is the argument you want to make here?

Dave | July 24, 2008, 5:53pm | #

"Along those lines, the only reason homosexuality in the military is a problem is because of the (extreme) discomfort it can cause among straight [latently gay] people in certain situations.

Fixed."

Now that's just stupid.

"You're assuming he'd be ogling you. Secondly, to turn your argument on its head, just because he may be attracted to MEN doesn't mean he's attracted to you (a man)."

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. A 300-pound woman could be pretty sure I'd not ogle her in the shower or anywhere else, but she'd still not want to shower with me.

And it's nothing like "no true Irishman," it's that those who've served know what the situation would be like, and those who haven't don't.

"Why not have separate gay sqadrons, regiments, and quarters?"Logistically, that simply wouldn't work.

"You are so lacking in confidence in yourself and your sexuality that you can't deal with one wink from another guy." You are an idiot. In what world does not wanting to shower with a gay man equate to lack of confidence in my own sexuality?

"idiots like you anonymously turn them in for thinking that they were "oogling" you in the shower. Grow the fuck up."

Nice comment for an anonymous poster.

"One other comment - as a gay man - the last thing I am doing is 'oogling' another guy in a public shower ... i mean seriously - have you seen them? Most need a few dozen miles on the treadmill..."

Obviously, that does not apply to the military.

"My father was a white officer commanding a Quartermaster Corps transport company in WWII. Afterward I remember someone asking about his “negroes.” He replied, “They could keep a deuce-and-a-half* on a dirt road at night and bust enemy troops and tanks with Ma-Deuce**. That made them good soldiers.”"

If all black men were gay, that would be relevant.

"Any guy who doesn't like gay guys ogling him is an idiot."

Are you serious?

And anyway, the group shower argument is one tiny piece. I think most of you don't understand how close you get to other men in the military. Really REALLY close. for there to be any hint of sexual attraction would kill the whole thing.

And I've seen it happen too with guys I knew to be straight, but who happened to be a bit feminine in mannerisms. The dynamic just wasn't the same.

zoltan | July 24, 2008, 9:19pm | #

That must be why the Greek army failed so miserably.

Alice Bowie | July 25, 2008, 4:39pm | #

My father caught me in the bathroon in a pair of panty hose