Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

[Tiger Wench]

I happen to agree with this guy's opinion - especially the bolded part.

http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=3213

So just about everything that can be said about the possible repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been said. Y’all can probably guess my position; I think a policy that requires soldiers, who depend on each other for their very lives, to lie to each other is even worse than an outright ban on gay soldiers and just generally a shitty policy that should be canned immediately if not sooner. Lots of other first-world nations, including Israel which has to deal with far more crap than we usually do, have fully integrated forces and they seem to be handling it just fine. Not using skilled, motivated resources available to us for a reason as petty as what they do in their bedrooms is just stupid.

There is one thing that I’d like to address, though. When I’ve seen people speaking out against repealing DADT- or advocating for a return flat-out to a total ban on gay soldiers- they are almost always men, and they very frequently cite some variant on a common theme. Apparently, it would be just horrible if they had to think about other men being attracted to them, and worry about being ogled, and maybe even worry about being raped, because there’s always the one creepy guy that’s willing to cross that line, and we just can’t do that to our soldiers. (Lesbians, as usual, are never mentioned, either because what the wimmens do is boring, or because that’s kind of hot and therefore okay.)

To these men, I have the following reply: welcome to what every single human female on the fucking planet deals with from puberty onward. You don’t like the idea that some man you’re not attracted to might be fantasizing about having sex with you, might be eyeing your fun bits, that there’s even a remote but existing chance he might rape you? Harden. The fuck. Up. Fifty percent of the population has to cope with this every day as a fact of life, and we’re called paranoid deranged feminazi man-haters if we even bring it up outside a feminist consciousness-raising session.

And you know what? It’s true, it’s not healthy to go around concerning yourself that deeply with other people’s sexual feelings and flinching as though they’re about to assault you as long as they’re not actually assaulting you. Even being hit on isn’t an assault even if it’s uncomfortable or even crosses the border into creepy territory. Only assault is assault, and until then whatever perverse sexual lust anybody is harboring isn’t your business unless they make it your business, and the only appropriate response of yours so long as it ISN’T an assault is “no”.

If Tiffani Amber the eighteen year old who happened to be blessed with the genes for a great rack can manage to not crack under such pressure, I think soldiers we expect to send into combat can probably find it within themselves.

Be glad you only have to cope with 5% of the male population instead of 95%, that you’re much more likely to be able to fend off a real assault with your bare hands than we are, and STOP WHINING about the bad nasty men that might want sex with people that might not be interested. When “cry like a little girl” becomes an inappropriate expression because the little girls are handling it better than you are, you know you really do need to put on your big-boy britches.

[BZ770]

Rump rangers and rear admirals.  I am tired of all the gay shit being crammed down your throat if you turn on a TV.  Let em out of the closet, if your a fag and your platoon finds out they'll probably do the soap in the sock and take care of you anyways.

[Tiger Wench]

My point is that the most common excuse for not repealing it is the "OMG, sum dude is gonna check out my package...".  WTF ever, dude.  Women deal with that every day, from men and from lesbians and we still carry on with our lives - even in the military.  Get a better excuse.

I cannot imagine that if you are taking on enemy fire, that whether or not the guy next to you thinks you are HAWT would cross your mind if he is a superior marksman.  As long as his uni is regulation, and he can shoot, who gives a crap what strip club he prefers when on leave?

[Saniflush]

My point is that the most common excuse for not repealing it is the "OMG, sum dude is gonna check out my package...".  WTF ever, dude.  Women deal with that every day, from men and from lesbians and we still carry on with our lives - even in the military.  Get a better excuse.

I cannot imagine that if you are taking on enemy fire, that whether or not the guy next to you thinks you are HAWT would cross your mind if he is a superior marksman.  As long as his uni is regulation, and he can shoot, who gives a crap what strip club he prefers when on leave?

I don't give a double flying fuck if the guy in my foxhole is gay or not.  The motherfucker better be able to circumcise a gnat at 400 meters.
This whole shit about "they may see me in the shower" is a load of shit as well.  Have you seen how the standard enlistee lives?  In a fucking dorm room, with high speed internet access, and private showers.  

All that being said this whole conversation was brought on by a need to shove this down the masses throat.  Anyone think there were not homosexuals in the military before DADT?  

[Tiger Wench]

I don't give a double flying fuck if the guy in my foxhole is gay or not.  The motherfucker better be able to circumcise a gnat at 400 meters.
This whole shit about "they may see me in the shower" is a load of shit as well.  Have to seen how the standard enlistee lives?  In a fucking dorm room, with high speed internet access, and private showers. 

All that being said this whole conversation was brought on by a need to shove this down the masses throat.  Anyone think there were not homosexuals in the military before DADT? 

I totally agree, Sani.  Just another example of liberals trying to force accommodation on the rest of us.  There were gays there before and there will be gays there after, and no policy is gonna change that fact.  Another situation where the govt needs to STFU and stay out of it.

[Saniflush]

  Another situation where the govt needs to STFU and stay out of it.

I'm not gonna lie.  It moved.

[Tiger Wench]

I'm not gonna lie.  It moved.

At the thought of sharing a foxhole with teh gheys? 

Sani, you dog you...


XXOXOXO, hon.

[Saniflush]

At the thought of sharing a foxhole with teh gheys? 

Sani, you dog you...


XXOXOXO, hon.

It was just that one time.

[AUChizad]

The reason DADT needs to be repealed is because of the reasons you bolded in the original post, in conjunction with the fact that if it comes out that you're gay, even if someone just spreads that rumor about you, you're discharged.

That's fucked up.

Like it was already said, if the guy is a superior marksman, or the famous cases of top Arabic translators who got the boot, then who gives a fuck how he prefers to fuck?

General protocol that prohibits sexual harassment, which already exists, should be enough.

If not, then ban sexual promiscuity of any kind.

[BZ770]

In this pc world we live in .  Not letting queers in the military is one of the few un-pc ideas left.  Lets keep it. :thumbsup:

[Kaos]

I am old school.  I still think it is a genetic defect that can be treated.  Or a choice. 

Either way it's wrong.

[GarMan]

Just some comments... 
To start with, the last time I checked, the military is not a social organization.  It's not summer camp.  It's not a school.  It's not a religion.  It's not happy hour.  It's nothing like prison.  They don't have to abide by the same EEOC regs as corporations.  And, they're usually not pre-occupied with promoting “deranged liberal concepts” of fairness and equality among the troops.  Social engineering just doesn't belong in the military... 

To these men, I have the following reply: welcome to what every single human female on the phuking planet deals with from puberty onward. You don’t like the idea that some man you’re not attracted to might be fantasizing about having sex with you, might be eyeing your fun bits, that there’s even a remote but existing chance he might rape you? Harden. The phuk. Up. Fifty percent of the population has to cope with this every day as a fact of life, and we’re called paranoid deranged feminazi man-haters if we even bring it up outside a feminist consciousness-raising session.

What BULLSHIT…  That's a nice, shallow, light-hearted perspective from an Oprah-watching,  bon bon gorging, couch sow.    Let's try this...  How about we start promoting unisex bathrooms and showers in high-schools, colleges and work places?  When bimbos of the opinion above start promoting unisex showers, I'll promote gays in the military.  I'll be all for it!  It's the close-quarters aspect of the military that makes this an issue.  If a moderately attractive woman is taking a shower alongside me, I’m gonna “harden up”…  It happens…  I was born that way.  It’s how I roll.  I can’t control it.  She doesn’t have to dig me, and I don’t have to dig her.  She can be married.  I can be married.  It doesn’t matter.  It’s just going to happen.  AND, it has the potential for leading to things that don’t belong in the military. 

My point is that the most common excuse for not repealing it is the "OMG, sum dude is gonna check out my package...".  WTF ever, dude.  Women deal with that every day, from men and from lesbians and we still carry on with our lives - even in the military.  Get a better excuse.

 
  While I don't know you personally, I'm fairly certain that you're smarter than that from your other posts in this forum.  We all know that it's a bit more complicated than this silly little summation. 

I cannot imagine that if you are taking on enemy fire, that whether or not the guy next to you thinks you are HAWT would cross your mind if he is a superior marksman.  As long as his uni is regulation, and he can shoot, who gives a crap what strip club he prefers when on leave?

And, here is where I can agree with you to some extent.  I don't think that anybody would disagree with this. 

The reason DADT needs to be repealed is because of the reasons you bolded in the original post, in conjunction with the fact that if it comes out that you're gay, even if someone just spreads that rumor about you, you're discharged.

That's phuked up.

Like it was already said, if the guy is a superior marksman, or the famous cases of top Arabic translators who got the boot, then who gives a phuk how he prefers to phuk?

General protocol that prohibits sexual harassment, which already exists, should be enough.

If not, then ban sexual promiscuity of any kind. 

 
The advocate <http://www.advocate.com/> inserts his two cents...    Let's invalidate the entire policy because of a few extreme cases.  Let's destroy the car because the cigarette lighter doesn't work.  Let's abort the fetus because it will never have perfect vision without corrective lenses.  Let's demolish the entire house because the paint is fading.  What about people who are incorrectly convicted of a crime they didn't commit?  Do we throw away the entire law to address the mistakes, or do we correct the mistakes?

I am old school.  I still think it is a genetic defect that can be treated.  Or a choice. 

Either way it's wrong.

BINGO!  I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that dismisses the genetic defect theory.  Throw other sexual proclivities into the mix and discern the differences for me.  Pedophile, homosexual, cat-lover, dog-fister…  Where are the differences?

[Kaos]

Just some comments... 
To start with, the last time I checked, the military is not a social organization.  It's not summer camp.  It's not a school.  It's not a religion.  It's not happy hour.  It's nothing like prison.  They don't have to abide by the same EEOC regs as corporations.  And, they're usually not pre-occupied with promoting “deranged liberal concepts” of fairness and equality among the troops.  Social engineering just doesn't belong in the military... 
What BULLSHIT…  That's a nice, shallow, light-hearted perspective from an Oprah-watching,  bon bon gorging, couch sow.    Let's try this...  How about we start promoting unisex bathrooms and showers in high-schools, colleges and work places?  When bimbos of the opinion above start promoting unisex showers, I'll promote gays in the military.  I'll be all for it!  It's the close-quarters aspect of the military that makes this an issue.  If a moderately attractive woman is taking a shower alongside me, I’m gonna “harden up”…  It happens…  I was born that way.  It’s how I roll.  I can’t control it.  She doesn’t have to dig me, and I don’t have to dig her.  She can be married.  I can be married.  It doesn’t matter.  It’s just going to happen.  AND, it has the potential for leading to things that don’t belong in the military. 
 
  While I don't know you personally, I'm fairly certain that you're smarter than that from your other posts in this forum.  We all know that it's a bit more complicated than this silly little summation. 
And, here is where I can agree with you to some extent.  I don't think that anybody would disagree with this. 
 
The advocate <http://www.advocate.com/> inserts his two cents...    Let's invalidate the entire policy because of a few extreme cases.  Let's destroy the car because the cigarette lighter doesn't work.  Let's abort the fetus because it will never have perfect vision without corrective lenses.  Let's demolish the entire house because the paint is fading.  What about people who are incorrectly convicted of a crime they didn't commit?  Do we throw away the entire law to address the mistakes, or do we correct the mistakes?
BINGO!  I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that dismisses the genetic defect theory.  Throw other sexual proclivities into the mix and discern the differences for me.  Pedophile, homosexual, cat-lover, dog-fister…  Where are the differences?

Wow.  That was awesome.  The man says what so many of us think but are hesitant to say in this upside down PC world. 

Agree with all. 

Except the house demolition part.  You mean I could have just put a fresh coat on and didn't actually need the bulldozers?

[Tiger Wench]

So you are saying that it would freak you out if the guy in the shower next to you gets a hard on?  Maybe he is thinking about his girl and what he would like to do to her.  How arrogant to think it is all about you.  Accommodating the differences in gender is one thing.  But to say that gays can't be in the military because one of them might find a fellow soldier to be attractive is ridiculous.  If he acts on that impulse, then that is against several rules that are already in place regarding fraternization, and he gets punished.  End of discussion. 

I could turn the "trash the car because the lighter doesn't work" analogy back around on you.  You are going to refuse to accept the skills of a highly trained, highly talented individual just because his sexual proclivities are different from yours?  If you can be trained to supress your sexual impulses in combat or in close quarters, so can he.   Right now, you have the self control (I assume) to be faithful to a wife or significant other and not hump every chick you see.  Just because a man is gay does not mean the only thing on his mind is to hump every ass he sees. Why is he less likely to be a professional military man than a straight guy?That just does not hold water. 

BINGO!  I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that dismisses the genetic defect theory.  Throw other sexual proclivities into the mix and discern the differences for me.  Pedophile, homosexual, cat-lover, dog-fister…  Where are the differences?

Relating homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality.  Right.     That is not a slap in the face of being PC – that is a slap in the face of common sense and rationality.  Sex between two consenting adults of ANY gender is a far cry from sex with children and sex with animals.  You just lost credibility with that comment.  You and I typically see eye to eye, but I am just not that narrow minded.

[Kaos]

Relating homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality.  Right.    That is not a slap in the face of being PC – that is a slap in the face of common sense and rationality.  Sex between two consenting adults of ANY gender is a far cry from sex with children and sex with animals.  You just lost credibility with that comment.  You and I typically see eye to eye, but I am just not that narrow minded.

Don't start that.  

It REALLY pisses me off when somebody who holds a different (and in my opinion utterly wrong-headed) viewpoint dismisses another's as "narrow-minded."  That's the kind of bullshit that leads to PC thinking, is usually based in ignorance or fear and is intended to quash legitimate debate -- often because the person who deems other views as "narrow-minded" knows that their opinion is subject to being broken down as wrong.  

When you're talking AU/AL football or KISS vs. Dave Matthews, then it's okay.  But not when used in this type of discussion.  

That's where credibility is lost, my friend.  

What gives you the right to tell me that I'm narrow-minded for thinking that homosexuality is a PERVERSION?  It is. We joke about it, but when you get right down to the meat (that's what she said) of the issue, it is a perversion of the natural order of things.  Homosexuals themselves have argued that their "preference" is hardwired, that in and of itself makes it a genetic issue.  If it IS genetic, then I see it as being no different than mongoloidism or a hair lip or any other genetic defect.  The fact that it is a defect means that it can theoretically be cured.  

You see, it's either a choice -- and therefore punishable -- or it's a defect -- and therefore cureable.  

I don't see homosexuals as any different at all from people who want to fuck sheep, dogs, goats, children, monkeys, fence posts, watermelons or mountain dew bottles.  All are sexual deviants.

[Tiger Wench]

Don't start that. 
BLAH BLAH

You disagree with it.  Fine.  But that is still just an opinion. I can think of a lot of things I would consider deviant behavior, but unless an innocent is harmed by such behavior, I am not going to get all high and mighty about it.  I say it is genetic for most men, while possibly a choice for some women, but in either situation, I am not judging, and I am not about to insist that anything that "deviates" from my personal practices be persecuted and "cured". 

You are folically challenged.  That's probably genetic.  Most other people have full heads of hair.  Should you be forced to wear a rug or get hair transplants?  You must be HEALED!!  Deviant!!!

You can't even argue the whole choice thing.  Hetero people make equally "deviant" choices in the bedroom.  Why should their "anal experimentation" be any different from a gay couple's sexual preferences? 

Gay folks are here to stay, and you may as well get used to it.  No one says you have to like it, but getting your own panties in a twist over what someone else does that doesn't cause direct harm to you is useless and yes, narrow minded.  "Curing" homosexuality went out with the dunking stool and burning witches at the stake.  Self- righteous Puritanism at its finest.

[CCTAU]

So you are saying that it would freak you out if the guy in the shower next to you gets a hard on?  Maybe he is thinking about his girl and what he would like to do to her.  How arrogant to think it is all about you. 

I love you, but when you grow a dick and participate in the male showering, then you can talk. I can just imagine if one of the guys popped a hardy in the shower when I was at AU. We took showers after practice every day (high school too). It was an unwritten rule. Keep your eyes up and never look excited.


And your argument blew as soon as you dismissed the co-ed living/showering. If women feel like they are ogled every day and demand separate quarters due to that, then why should a man not be afforded the same respect in terms of having some privacy? Either way, DADT gives gay individuals the right to serve if they so choose, but that right is denied as soon as they show that their choice could affect unit moral. It is the same as some dude posing as a chick and as soon as they find out he has been a female soldier and now they know he is male, do the females really want him around in their intimate places? IT would affect moral.

I would think that the feminazi who wrote that could see the exact correlation.

DADT is the best compromise we have to date.

[Tiger Wench]

And your argument blew as soon as you dismissed the co-ed living/showering. If women feel like they are ogled every day and demand separate quarters due to that, then why should a man not be afforded the same respect in terms of having some privacy?

Separation by gender is appropriate. Seperation WITHIN a gender is stupid.  I lived in a dorm FULL of women at Judson, and I KNOW that several of them were lesbians.  We had communal showers and there was not a "shower time for straight chicks" and "shower time for lesbos".  But that never EVER bothered me.  Unless said chick was grabbing my ass or staring at my boobs, then her thoughts were her own.  

And I will bet dollars to doughnuts that just like the author of the original post said, some of you will come back with "Well, that's ok - two chicks is HAWT."  And just like she said, the only people that have a problem with gays in the military are MALE - when I would bet that there are more lesbians than gay men in the military.  That only makes sense, right?  Butchy women more so than feminine men?  But you don't hear other women complaining - we are just not that uptight about it.

You guys are just majorly (haha) insecure about even the THOUGHT of another naked man, hetero or not.  

Plus?  If you are staring straight ahead, how would you know if he pops wood or not??

And I love you too.

[CCTAU]

And I will bet dollars to doughnuts that just like the author of the original post said, some of you will come back with "Well, that's ok - two chicks is HAWT." 

Nope. Like I said, grow and ick and then we'll talk. So much of what men do (sports, military, etc.) revolve around bravado, comraderie, and testosterone. For years society has been trying to emasculate males. There are very few "soft" soldiers. Its a fine delicate line that is only understood if you see it from that perspective. We really don;t give shit what women do in these terms. The majority of men only care about how it will affect their unit/actions. And in war, any thought that gives doubt or weakness is bad for the military.

[Kaos]

You disagree with it.  Fine.  But that is still just an opinion. I can think of a lot of things I would consider deviant behavior, but unless an innocent is harmed by such behavior, I am not going to get all high and mighty about it.  I say it is genetic for most men, while possibly a choice for some women, but in either situation, I am not judging, and I am not about to insist that anything that "deviates" from my personal practices be persecuted and "cured".

Don't tell me I'm narrow-minded because I disagree.  That was the point.   

You are folically challenged.  That's probably genetic.  Most other people have full heads of hair.  Should you be forced to wear a rug or get hair transplants?  You must be HEALED!!  Deviant!!!

If they come up with a cure for it, I'll damn sure take it.  This perhaps the most ridiculous argument you've ever attempted to post, however.

You can't even argue the whole choice thing.  Hetero people make equally "deviant" choices in the bedroom.  Why should their "anal experimentation" be any different from a gay couple's sexual preferences? 

When I see a "dress up like a cheerleader and spank me with a spatula" parade or when the "fuck me while I hang from the ceiling fan" crowd insists that schools not discriminate against them and have books that feature spatula spankers or fan hangers, then yeah I'll have an issue with that, too. 

If you want to be a fag and somebody else wants to be a fag with you, I don't care.  You're the ones going to hell, so that's on you.  Just don't try to force it onto my television as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Don't make my kids have to have conversations about it. 

Gay folks are here to stay, and you may as well get used to it.  No one says you have to like it, but getting your own panties in a twist over what someone else does that doesn't cause direct harm to you is useless and yes, narrow minded.  "Curing" homosexuality went out with the dunking stool and burning witches at the stake.  Self- righteous Puritanism at its finest.

Is it a genetic defect or not?  If so, it can be cured.  End of story there.  If it's not a genetic defect, then it is a preference and preferences have consequences.

Please define harm.  The fact that my nine year old daughter knows that there is such a thing as homosexuality is harm enough. 

Burning at the stake is fine with me.