Results 1 to 20 of 324

Thread: Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    What I find most interesting about the entire "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" debate is that it focuses entirely on issue of homosexuals right to serve in the military, and the impact of having homosexuals serving openly in the military.

    Those of us who have spent long years in the military all have known and worked with dozens of relatively openly homosexual service members throughout our careers. While it makes some uncomfortable and leads to some distasteful commentary, from insults to humor, it really seems like much of a non-issue by in large.

    What has not been discussed at all though is the much larger issue of homosexual acts rather than homosexual orientation. Prisons are full of straight men and women, who for lack of any other option, participate willingly in homosexual acts. They rationalize it as just one more hard compromise they have to make based upon their circumstances.

    A Marine friend of mine, who is famous for his candor and rough humor (you gotta love the military for this unique aspect of the community, the last refuge where PC is held somewhat at bay), would say "It's not gay if your underway!" As a winter ranger we would huddle spooning and shivering under shared ponchos and poncho liners in desperate attempts to stay warm enough to catch a couple hours of sleep and joke "No queers on a cold night!" Such rough, ironic barracks humor is about to become a barracks reality.

    The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.

    While certainly homosexual acts between straight service members occurred throughout the history of the military, for the U.S. military the tool employed to contain and mitigate the widespread incidence of such acts was first the ban on homosexuals altogether, followed by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

    Now that constraint will be lifted. Will DoD expand their puritanical controls to greater regulation sexual activity between consenting adults? Or will the U.S. military devolve into a culture where senior leaders have "Chai boys" and every squad has a "squad boy"?

    I really don't know, and I'm not judging. I just find it interesting that while everyone was agonizing over the civil rights of homosexuals and the potential impact of openly serving homosexuals on unit morale, no one bothered to talk about what I see as a much larger issues of the "prison sex" syndrome. The greater incidence of such acts is inevitable. There will likely be a rise of same-sex abuse of rank and power for sex in exchange for privileges and favors as well.

    We're entering a new era, and no one is talking about the most critical aspect of that era.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 12-19-2010 at 02:11 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  2. #2
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I really don't know, and I'm not judging. I just find it interesting that while everyone was agonizing over the civil rights of homosexuals and the potential impact of openly serving homosexuals on unit morale, no one bothered to talk about what I see as a much larger issues of the "prison sex" syndrome. The greater incidence of such acts is inevitable. There will likely be a rise of same-sex abuse of rank and power for sex in exchange for privileges and favors as well.
    Yep, that will be a really,really big issue IMO unless it is covered up. I said it before the Combatives manual is nothing but a Gay Prison Sex manual There are some very disturbing seens in the movie Restrapo that hint at such behvior. If they legalize Gay stuff then why not provide Prostitution battalions for the rest of the troops.

  3. #3
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.
    I couldn't disagree more.

    Being on deployment doesn't compare to being in prison. Strangely enough, men can go eight months or more without having sex. Most of us lower enlisted tend to overcompensate a bit on this score when we get home, but it's not really that unendurable. Unlike prison, we are not trapped in restrictive circumstances for years at a time, and unlike prison we are volunteers who, generally, have a degree of discipline and professionalism that separates us from most of the civilian population.

    Oh, and if you really believe that the troops lack for porn on deployment or anywhere else, you really are out of touch.

    There are some very disturbing seens in the movie Restrapo that hint at such behvior. If they legalize Gay stuff then why not provide Prostitution battalions for the rest of the troops.
    Eh, what?

  4. #4
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post

    Eh, what?

    It's discrimination. If DOD is going to facilitate gay sex then they should facilitate regular sex to.

  5. #5
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    It's discrimination. If DOD is going to facilitate gay sex then they should facilitate regular sex to.
    How does repealing DADT = facilitating gay sex?

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.
    Ever done six months on a ship or submarine? For my first cruise in the Navy my berthing had 150 people crammed inside the square footage of a typical family home. There's lots of gay jokes, lots of very frank talk about spanking the monkey, but very, very, very little sex either gay or straight - at least on board ship. Port calls are altogether different.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  7. #7
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    How does repealing DADT = facilitating gay sex?
    Because they are saying it's legal now.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Because they are saying it's legal now.
    Current regulations in Afghanistan effectively ban sex, at least between unmarried soldiers. Why would you think that gay sex would be encouraged in the field, when heterosexual sex is not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Will DoD expand their puritanical controls to greater regulation sexual activity between consenting adults? Or will the U.S. military devolve into a culture where senior leaders have "Chai boys" and every squad has a "squad boy"?
    Really? Really?

  9. #9
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Hmm. I doubt most of you have actually been in a state prison, though some may have spent some time in a county or city jail There are good stories waiting much beer about both systems, but instead of some form of caged heat, your are much more likely to find convicted murders playing chess with the CO's.

    Y'all got to remember EVERYTHING is monitored inside a modern correctional facility.

    So, not to put to fine a point on the topic most state prisons have some mechanism for felons to visit family members "Rocking the trailers" comes to mind.

    Rampant social puritanism (no sex anywhere or any form) and cultural constructivism (no beer in Muslim countries) seem to be forms of control that rarely have anything to do with war fighting. We will kill your families, bomb your homes, destroy your country, but heck no we won't offend you by drinking beer in country. From this side of the civilian pond it seems absurd.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  10. #10
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    We will kill your families, bomb your homes, destroy your country, but heck no we won't offend you by drinking beer in country. From this side of the civilian pond it seems absurd.
    Quote of the week Apocalypse now type stuff!

  11. #11
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    I just spent the last 20 minutes skimming this thread and could find only one brief allusion to the history that prompted restrictions in the first place. That was by Bob's World. The history that prompted the restrictions is something that should be considered. I don't know what it is but the rules came from somewhere and were created for some reason.

    I don't think using prisoner culture is useful. There is nothing normal about a prison culture, especially the inmates. If they were normal they wouldn't be in there.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  12. #12
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I don't think using prisoner culture is useful. There is nothing normal about a prison culture, especially the inmates. If they were normal they wouldn't be in there.
    I know a lot of prisoners/criminals that would argue that point

  13. #13
    Council Member Spud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Now that constraint will be lifted. Will DoD expand their puritanical controls to greater regulation sexual activity between consenting adults? Or will the U.S. military devolve into a culture where senior leaders have "Chai boys" and every squad has a "squad boy"?

    I really don't know, and I'm not judging. I just find it interesting that while everyone was agonizing over the civil rights of homosexuals and the potential impact of openly serving homosexuals on unit morale, no one bothered to talk about what I see as a much larger issues of the "prison sex" syndrome. The greater incidence of such acts is inevitable. There will likely be a rise of same-sex abuse of rank and power for sex in exchange for privileges and favors as well.

    We're entering a new era, and no one is talking about the most critical aspect of that era.
    damn I just missed the sky falling (again).

    Perhaps we're just wired differently from yáll but there is no evidence whatsover of this occuring down here (if anything the thing that keeps getting us in the #### is hetro acts couypled with alcohol abuse) and we've allowed gay relationships for years.

    Perhaps your question relates more to the education and maturity of your diggers ... prison population = lowest common-denominator in terms of education, experiences etc. If you're equating your soldiers with that group I'm glad I serve in an Army it's bloody hard to get into in the first place.

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    54

    Default Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Now that constraint will be lifted. Will DoD expand their puritanical controls to greater regulation sexual activity between consenting adults? Or will the U.S. military devolve into a culture where senior leaders have "Chai boys" and every squad has a "squad boy"?

    I really don't know, and I'm not judging. I just find it interesting that while everyone was agonizing over the civil rights of homosexuals and the potential impact of openly serving homosexuals on unit morale, no one bothered to talk about what I see as a much larger issues of the "prison sex" syndrome. The greater incidence of such acts is inevitable. There will likely be a rise of same-sex abuse of rank and power for sex in exchange for privileges and favors as well.
    I can only hope that you were drunk when you wrote this. This sort of hysteria is - almost - unbelievable coming from a retired O-6 and someone whose intellect and insight is supposedly worthy of advising the defense community.

    By no means do I consider myself a gay rights activist, but if you're going to oppose the repeal of DADT, and if you are going to attach your own name and profile to it, then please come up with an argument that is a bit more becoming of someone that has more than a grade school education gained in Appalachia in the 1950s. This logic reflects poorly upon the quality of intellect recruited to the think tank listed in your profile. If I were the director and saw this post, I'd have reservations about the quality of work I could expect. It isn't a question of pro- or anti-gay. But "squad boys"... really? The imagined scenario is an insult not to gays, but to the NCOs and officers still serving in the military that are more than capable of maintaining good order and discipline in difficult times. Your implications disgrace us, and not due to homosexuality, but due to the fact that such an ignorant point of view would be projected onto us.
    Last edited by pjmunson; 12-20-2010 at 06:36 AM. Reason: Slightly toned down.

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjmunson View Post
    I can only hope that you were drunk when you wrote this. This sort of hysteria is - almost - unbelievable coming from a retired O-6 and someone whose intellect and insight is supposedly worthy of advising the defense community.

    By no means do I consider myself a gay rights activist, but if you're going to oppose the repeal of DADT, and if you are going to attach your own name and profile to it, then please come up with an argument that is a bit more becoming of someone that has more than a grade school education gained in Appalachia in the 1950s. This logic reflects poorly upon the quality of intellect recruited to the think tank listed in your profile. If I were the director and saw this post, I'd have reservations about the quality of work I could expect. It isn't a question of pro- or anti-gay. But "squad boys"... really? The imagined scenario is an insult not to gays, but to the NCOs and officers still serving in the military that are more than capable of maintaining good order and discipline in difficult times. Your implications disgrace us, and not due to homosexuality, but due to the fact that such an ignorant point of view would be projected onto us.
    You would be surprised how many otherwise very intelligent people can hold the most patently ridiculous thoughts regarding homosexuality. My best bud is about to make e6 and he's truly one of the most well read, intelligent, and thoughtful guys I know, but homosexual-anything is abhorrent to him. Gay marriage? Hell no. Gays in the military? Just as bad.

    To the guy who fear-mongered with "squad boys", all I can say to you is "LOL" and thank god I never have a chance of seeing you in my chain of command. Seriously, thank you for the LOL. If this were any website but small wars journal I would have figured you for a pretty poor troll. I guess you haven't had one of the myriad EO violation classes forced upon you recently. You know, the level of boring on par with reading the Bible for hours. The briefings CLEARLY state that there will be absolutely severe repurcussions for anyone who uses sexual favors to gain power above or under another soldier. And then there's the whole most-people-aren't-gay-and-even-if-they-were-they-probably-wouldn't-be-inclined-to-####-a-pass-around-"boy" thing.

    This reminds me of the first offical briefing I received on homosexuality within the military. It was a from a O5. She briefed the class that homosexuals cannot serve in the military, and because it deeply offended her Christian sensibility. I wondered what the hell her religious beliefs had to do with anything.
    Last edited by Deus Ex; 12-20-2010 at 07:48 AM. Reason: grammar

  16. #16
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.
    I think denial of access to local women and cheap booze is an excellent idea, and in many places necessary. That stuff easily gets way out of hand... does anybody else remember Olongapo City when the fleet was in Subic? Good fun for some, but causes some real complications with the host country government and populace. There have been incidents involving US troops in the Philippines could easily have been avoided if cheap booze and local women were not on the menu.

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    This study may now be relevant.
    PH Cannady
    Correlate Systems

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •