Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Remove all ads!

Sorry dmc - I didn't mean to get the topic sidetracked - but the basis of the story itself is factual.

 

The interesting paranoia inherent in some people is what's of interest here -- the fact that many males feel that homosexuals somehow threaten their own sexuality. In addition, there is the fear that a homosexual in close proximity will proposition hetero men. Now, the proposition would make me uncomfortable too, but I personally don't see the need to get hysterical about it*.

Another interesting thought to ponder is the friendship angle -- many straight males do not want to be friends with homosexual males because they fear ostracism from their fellow straight friends based on association. Thus, to ensure that such ostracism doesn't occur, such males act out with public acts of contempt or hatred or even violence toward those they perceive as homosexuals. Given the close quarters and close friendships that develop between soldiers, this has problem potential.

I can see the argument that a homosexual would be at risk from such small minded people in an extremely physical, violent, and I will go as far as to say macho environment as the military. Only extremely firm discipline from officers who are fully committed to the idea would protect the gay male personnel.

*A final thought -- talk about hubris! Do some of these straight guys think that they are so freaking irresistable that the gay guys are gonna make a beeline for them and beg for the pleasure of <snip -- you get the idea without me going MUG and pissing DMC off>

 

To play devil's advocate, if you consider that many people feel that hetero men and women can't genuinely be friends (as in no-other-interest-but-friendship) because of inherant sexual tension, might not that potential also exist with homosexual persons?

I personally think that most heterosexual men and women can be friends (or two homosexual people of the same gender, for that matter), but I also think that there is almost always sexual tension between them, or at least on the part of one party.

 

To back that devil's advocate position, consider the problems that have developed over the years just having men and women serving on the same bases. I remember about two years ago it seemed like very week there was another accusation of rape, or murder, or hidden romances gone otherwise wrong, between male and female officers.

 

Of course NOG ... there are millions of people serving on US bases around the world, the demographic is much like any major city in the US, complete with the crime and domestic disputes, and it's always been that way. Women have been on military bases since the very beginning and the things you listed have been happening all that time -- do not confuse lack of prior reporting with lack of prior criminal acts.

The crime rate on a base is much lower than in a major city, so I would argue women are actually safer on a base.

 

Ah, but when women become officers and are working closely with superior officers, the dynamics change a bit, including the dynamics of the consequences.

 

When I was in the Air Force, husbands on the base were killing their wives at a very alarming rate. Also, a man shot his girlfriend in a bar in front of all the patrons. I was only on this particular base for a year. It was very disturbing. These were the only acts of violence on the base while I was there. Most of the other crimes committed were burglaries or drinking violations.

 

Why is it any different than at company, NOG? It's really no different than an office affair -- the results are just as bad.