Now it's Go Ahead, Ask Me - I Can Tell You

[Evo]

But would you be willing to accept the same shared quarters with men, instead of gay women. If not, why not?

I would be more willing to share quarters with gay women than not straight men. My perception is that straight men are more likely to have sexual thoughts and attempt to act on them than gay women.

 

[turbo]

I'm glad that DADT is gone, and now we'll see if the military caves in (it won't).

There were similar dire warnings about racially-integrating the armed forces during WWII. After Truman signed the integration order, it still took years to get the military on board, and there were still all-black units during the Korean War. The fellow who coordinated and managed my projects when I worked at General Physics was a black former Navy engineer off a nuclear sub. At least the Navy had figured out that putting white and black sailors in close quarters for open-ended deployments under the sea wouldn't result in loss of morale and unit cohesion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would be more willing to share quarters with gay women than not straight men. My perception is that straight men are more likely to have sexual thoughts and attempt to act on them than gay women.

Given that is purely a perception issue, what if I as a man have similar perceptions about gay men? By definition they are more likely to have sexual thoughts about other men, than are straight men. Given that my perceptions no longer matter in this regard [not that I have a problem with the end of DADT], shouldn't the same apply to women? At the least, wouldn't it make more sense to team gay women with gay men, than straight men and women with gay men and women? To me it seems that to ignore the discomforts that straight men may have with gay men in private situations, but to respect the concerns that women have in regards to straight men, is discrimination.

 

[WhoWee]

Given that is purely a perception issue, what if I as a man have similar perceptions about gay men? By definition they are more likely to have sexual thoughts about other men, than are straight men. Given that my perceptions no longer matter in this regard [not that I have a problem with the end of DADT], shouldn't the same apply to women? At the least, wouldn't it make more sense to team gay women with gay men, than straight men and women with gay men and women? To me it seems that to ignore the discomforts that straight men may have with gay men in private situations, but to respect the concerns that women have in regards to straight men, is discrimination.

I don't think it's necessary to move 180 to a "must ask" policy. Don't ask is still valid - just change the second part to "don't care" and it shouldn't be an issue - IMO.

 

[turbo]

In college, a GF and I were friends with people in the theater department, many of whom were gays and lesbians. We were often invited to their parties, we always went if we were free. The music was good, the food was good, and so was the company. If some lady eyed my GF or some guy eyed me, no harm, no foul. The president of the Wilde-Stein club (gay organization) was a stunner, as was her GF, so I'd chat them up too.

 

[lisab]

I don't think it's necessary to move 180 to a "must ask" policy. Don't ask is still valid - just change the second part to "don't care" and it shouldn't be an issue - IMO.

I agree. I've observed that generally, younger people really don't give a damn about this issue - they just don't care. It seems to be more of an issue among older people.

Besides, the "straight men bunking with gay men" thing has been already happening, regardless of the the policy towards gays is.

 

[Jack21222]

I don't think it's necessary to move 180 to a "must ask" policy. Don't ask is still valid - just change the second part to "don't care" and it shouldn't be an issue - IMO.

I don't agree with you often, WhoWee... but I do here. Well said.

 

[256bits]

I am a Vietnam Veteran. In my opinion, what matters is a person's competence: does he or she have the skills to do the job? What they do after "work" is not important to the mission.

Irrespective of all the bunking, rape, gawking or whatever comments, this statement is what it is all about.

Hospitals have unisex bathrooms - I don't think the male doctors and nurses just think of how they can get in there and rape a female doctor of nurse, and the same for the military. What about regular place of employment? Anecdotal evidence does not make a complete arguement.

Any gay, guy, woman, heterosexual guy, woman is going to be pushed out not by their gender, but by not performing up to snuff.

 

[estro]

Ignoring all other issues, I had always understood a significant component of the ban on military service was logistical -- bunking a homosexual man with other men being quite analogous to (and arguably more severe than) bunking a heterosexual man with women. Has this suddenly become unimportant?

I don't think this is the reason, actually in Israeli army girls serve together with boys on almost equal terms [except combat positions]. Think about the army as a work a place, if you up to the mission no one cares about your sexual tendencies.

 

[DoggerDan]

In my experience, gays don't share their sexuality any more than heteros...

In the military, that's actually quite a lot.

...in fact I'd say they keep their private lives more hidden, because they can never be sure of what reaction they will get.

So no that restriction's been lifted and sensitivity training has begun, they'll be sharing that a lot, as well, just like Elton John's unbridled "We can't get pregnant but we keep trying" comment on Saturday Night Live.

But some heteros share their sexual preferences *a lot*...like Jack mentioned...

Good to know others are aware of the indiscretions.

I'm just glad that gays and lesbians will no longer lose their jobs if their sexuality becomes known.

That's already protected under most state laws, isn't it?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I for one would not think an openly gay man would be safe bunking in the service. Women are getting hurt in the service now. You think a gay man will be safer because he made his gayness public in the service?

I skimmed some articles. It appears that gay service members are/were less likely to come forward if they were raped because of DADT and the fear of losing their jobs. DADT may have actually caused more problems with regard to rape.

Story of a 'serial rapist' in the Air Force

 

[KingNothing]

I am a Vietnam Veteran. In my opinion, what matters is a person's competence: does he or she have the skills to do the job? What they do after "work" is not important to the mission.

So does this mean you supported or did not support DADT?

 

[Bobbywhy]

In the 60’s I had shipmates who hated gay men, and even a few who would, when off duty, “troll” for them and then beat them bloody. There was an extreme intolerance then; the psychologists should try to explain that for us. Nowadays many of the older, more conservative military folks still have real difficulty in accepting gay soldiers and sailors.

In my opinion, the DADT policy was created so as to allow gay men and women to serve their country. It formed a bridging mechanism between extreme intolerance and today’s general acceptance of homosexuality.

I am asked, “Did you support the DADT policy?” I answer that it appears to have functioned as designed.

 

[DoggerDan]

In the 60’s I had shipmates who hated gay men, and even a few who would, when off duty, “troll” for them and then beat them bloody. There was an extreme intolerance then; the psychologists should try to explain that for us. Nowadays many of the older, more conservative military folks still have real difficulty in accepting gay soldiers and sailors.

I've heard confessions along similar lines involving serious repurcussions against those opposed, up to and included missing crewmen i.e. the gays banded together and tossed the antagonist overboard. "Smith? No, we haven't seen Seaman Smith since he signed out last watch..."

Time will tell.