LabRat over at Atomic Nerds bases their position around the money quote that Tam linked:
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.
The whole post is good and funny so it's a definite RTWT, but I think it's flawed at its heart. In the great sentence above, one key element is overlooked:
Men are not the same as women, and 18 year old men are NOT the same as 18 year old women.
Sure, a hot chick gets unwanted and unwarranted attention. Hell, non-hot chicks get that. But 18 year old women are not being forced to shave, shower, and shit with 18 year old men, and heretofore, always with good reason. 18 year old men are VERY VERY VERY interested in hot chicks to a degree that no one who is not, or has not been one, can really understand. Gay guys have the same drive, just in a different lane. And most straight guys DO NOT LIKE the idea of male sexual interest.
(And if Tiffani Amber of the 18-year great front porch isn't a little bit creeped-out by the idea of displaying her holiest of holies in front of a pack of horny guys, then don't we usually assume she's a little off center anyway?)
So, anyway, if you bring it out in the open like this, some necks are going to get broken in barracks, and some unit efficiencies are going to drop. End of the world? Nah. The pro-gay folks are whining for their cookie and they'll probably get it this time, and whatever the JCS decide is good enough for me the civvie.
So, to close: to me, politically, it's a silly fight to get drawn into, but it's also silly to presume that there's no fight to be had there.
Posts
3 comments:
I agree with this mostly, especially the bit about the White House tossing this tasty morsel in front of the GOP in order to break their concentration.
And it’s working at least a little bit. I heard Duncan Hunter on the radio a couple days ago sounding like a complete maniac, going on and on about the homosexshull agenda, and the flood of hermaphrodites and transsexuals about to enter the Armed Forces, if DADT goes away.
I think Duncan Hunter should spend some time in Chelsea (NYC) on a warm Saturday night in summer and ask a few of the cross-dressers and transgendered folk down there how eager they are to join an organization that makes them wake up at dawn, shoot guns, wear polyester and eat at non-Zagat-rated facilities.
When this issue comes up, mostly what I have is questions – if there are already gays and lesbians in the ranks, don’t the issues of showering or sharing a fox hole already exist? Or does it make such a huge difference that everyone gay is technically still in the closet?
And in terms of unit cohesion I wonder how much difference it makes. As a straight guy, I wouldn't hit on someone I knew wasn't interested and might break my nose. I’d guess that anyone motivated enough to be in a combat unit in the first place might not want to screw that up by hitting on the other guys in the squad….
My other question is this – is assuming that gay soldiers will hit on straight/uninterested soldiers the same as assuming I'll hit on Tiffani Amber even though I’m married and have 2 kids, and being pretty confident that she’ll bust a 2x4 across my chops if I put a finger out of line?
And Borepatch brings the funny into play: http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/dont-ask-dont-tell.html
That's frikkin hilarious.
Thanks for the link, Atom Smasher. I'd describe it as fabulous!
As to fights in the barracks, some (not all, but some) seems like Truman's integration of the ranks. Discipline is expected.
I read LabRat's post (and even more ASM826's post) as essentially saying "there are already gays in the military today, and discipline is good."
Post a Comment