A report in Newsweek shines a light on “a part of life in the armed forces that hardly anyone talks about: male-on-male sexual assault.” Jesse Ellison writes:
While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted gay soldiers, military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual. Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Assault victims, both male and female, are typically young and low-ranking; they are targeted for their vulnerability.
A key argument by those opposed to letting open gays serve in the military was that it would lead to sexualized barracks (often with the none too subtle invoking of gays as sexual predators). In all likelihood, having open gays around will decrease the incidents of male-on-male sexual assault. Reporting and follow-up measures being put in place measures to protect straights from gays will have the effect of protecting both gays and vulnerable straights from the assaults of twisted, hetero bastards.
Related: The GOP’s House hearings this week on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”—a sop to the anti-gay right—failed to produce the bang the bigots were looking for.
“The whole thrust of the training is you’re supposed to go on treating everybody like you’re supposed to be treating everybody now—with dignity, respect and discipline,” [Secretary of Defense] Gates said.
Well, treating everyone with dignity, respect and discipline certainly would be a step forward!
13 Comments for “Another Reason Why Open Gays Will Be Good for the Military”
posted by Carl on
I’m mostly concerned about how unlikely it is that any positive comments about gays in the military will sway the GOP in the House. One Congressman asked how expensive it was to train soldiers post-DADT, and when he was told the low cost, he just didn’t believe it. Nothing that is said or done will convince this type of Congressman, or Vicki Hartzler, who has spent years tirelessly working against gay rights.
The Republicans are probably going to take over the Senate next year, which means the only possible roadblock to more anti-gay military policies would be Obama (if he is re-elected), and I have zero faith in him to support us.
posted by Marin on
Doesn’t really matters if the GOP takes the Senate by a few seats so long as they don’t have an anti-gay filibuster proof majority and not even all GOP senator are anti-gay.
Even if (perish the thought! LOL) Obama were to lose his reelection bid, anti-gay legislation would die in the Senate.
A thought… if the DOMA or the Prop 8 cases reach the Supreme Court and make same sex marriage available nationwide, then is not even 60 anti-gay votes we need to worry about, they’ll need 67 to hurt us.
posted by Doug on
I guess this finally lays to rest the dogma about the Tea Party only being interested in fiscal issues. Most of us already knew this but a few diehards kept the talking point alive.
Tea Party = GOP = antigay
posted by another steve on
Doug, where have “the tea party” or “tea party activists” lobbied against gays in the military?
The “tea party” and the Republican Party are not one and the same. The GOP has “tea party” supporters (fiscal conservatives) and a large and vocal religious right flank to contend with — just as Democrats have LGBT voters and socially and religiously conservative African-Americans and Hispanics to please.
posted by Houndentenor on
Do I need to pull up the voting record of the Tea Party candidates both in Congress and the various state legislatures to show that there is little difference between the religious right and the Tea Party on social issues. After claiming int he campaign that they were not about social issues, their actions since the election have proven that to be an outright lie.
posted by BobN on
Providing facts will not do anything, at least based on previous attempts.
posted by another steve on
Here’s a fact: Rep. Ron Paul, the tea partiest of the tea partiers in Congress, voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
posted by Jorge on
Really? (Checks the archives)
I totally forgot about that. I guess I *really* didn’t like him.
posted by Carl on
Were there any Republican Congressman or senators elected last year who supported the repeal? (Not counting Charles Djou who was elected and then lost in the general election)
posted by Houndentenor on
There were 8 in the Senate:
•Scott Brown, Massachusetts
•Susan Collins, Maine
•Olympia Snowe, Maine
•Mark Kirk, Illinois
•Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
•John Ensign, Nevada
•Richard Burr, North Carolina
•George Voinovich, Ohio
There were 15 in the House:
– Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL)
– Representative David Dreier (R-CA)
– Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)
– Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
– Representative John Campbell (R-CA)
– Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
– Representative Anh ‘Joseph’ Cao (R-LA)
– Representative Ron Paul (R-TX)
– Representative Mike Castle (R-DE)
– Representative Todd Platts (R-PA)
– Representative Charlie Dent (R-PA)
– Representative Dave Reichert (R-WA)
– Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
– Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
– Representative Charles Djou (R-HI)
posted by BobN on
And how many other TPers followed his lead?
Zero
So ya got 1. Big deal.
posted by Carl on
A House hearing on “defending marriage”. Apparently the chairman has suggested impeaching Obama and Eric Holder on this issue.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/04/08/house-gop-to-hold-hearing-on-defending-marriage/
posted by Bioplasma on
How seriously are we supposed to take the claim that sexual assaults by men against other men in the military are “motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination”?
Are there supposed to be no non-sexual ways in which men can intimidate and dominate other men? If a man wants to intimidate or dominate another man, assaulting him or beating him up is an obvious enough option – why a man who could intimidate or dominate another man that way would also feel the need to have sex with him isn’t immediately obvious.
And that cliché – “”Sexual assault isn’t about sex, it’s about violence” – how dreary to see it still being bandied about. It’s pseudo-scientific garbage cooked up by radical feminists and social scientists with their own agendas; the interested reader should see Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer’s A Natural History of Rape for a convincing debunking.