I thought I’d ask again what I brought up a few years: How can the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — or for that matter, any similar exclusion policy — be justified as to lesbians? As I understand it, the main argument in favor of such a policy for male homosexuals is that in all-male or nearly-all-male combat units the possibility of sexual tension may undermine unit effectiveness. I’m skeptical about this argument, but it at least seems plausible.
Yet that doesn’t seem to apply to lesbians, since presumably they would very rarely be serving in all-female units, and never in all-female combat units. Moreover, even if we set aside antidiscrimination arguments and focus solely on military effectiveness (which may or may not be the right approach, but let’s use it here), it seems lesbians would tend to make better soldiers than straight women:
- They are less likely to get pregnant.
- They seem less likely to get sexually transmitted diseases.
- If the stereotypes about lesbians tending to act in more masculine ways are generally accurate — hard to tell, for obvious measurement reasons, but that seems to be the conventional wisdom — then that cuts further in favor of lesbians as opposed to straight women. Many women may well make great soldiers, but if we’re speaking about generalities, and the military policy is generally defended using generalizations, I’m happy to at least tentatively assume (as I suspect would the military) that stereotypically masculine traits and attitudes tend to be more useful for soldiering than stereotypically feminine ones.
Is it just that the military fears that straight soldiers will so dislike lesbians that this itself would cause morale problems? I guess that just doesn’t strike me as that factually plausible.
Is it that the military wants to treat male and female homosexuals equally, for fairness or public relations reasons? That seems odd: Can it really be that discriminating against homosexuals is just fine, discriminating against women (as the military long has done, and still in considerable measure does) is just fine, but discriminating based on sex among homosexuals is wrong, even when there’s a perfectly sensible argument for such discrimination?
Is it that the worry is that having lesbians using communal shower facilities with other women would make the women uncomfortable, because the straight women would be worried about being ogled by the lesbians? I suppose that’s possible, but isn’t that a pretty minor concern, especially given the broad surrender of privacy that is expected in the military?
Or is there something else I’m missing here? By the way, an AP story published by Stars & Stripes in 2009 reports that “Women accounted for 15 percent of all active-duty and reserve members of the military but more than one-third of the 619 people discharged last year because of their sexual orientation. The disparity was particularly striking in the Air Force, where women represented 20 percent of all personnel but 61 percent of those expelled.”
REQUEST: Could you please focus the discussion in the comments on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as applied to lesbians, and set aside the unit cohesion arguments related to male homosexuals? Those unit cohesion arguments could be commented on in the comments accompanying Ilya’s “Unit Cohesion” post.
ArthurKirkland says:
A fascinating angle.
Objections?
“Abomination” is the first word that comes to mind.
February 10, 2010, 4:20 pmMaryG says:
Is it just that the military fears that straight soldiers will so dislike lesbians that this itself would cause morale problems? I guess that just doesn’t strike me as that factually plausible.
Well, there are a lot of straight women — even professionals and well educated — who do … run scared at the thought of participating equally in an activity with lesbians.
Someone on the other thread commented regarding athletics. (His wife allegedly wouldn’t play college v-ball, because “I am not a lesbian.”)
Also, you might consider that many American men learn early on to better bond with a team, a unit. This trait is not particularly true of women, especially women raised pre Title IX.
The princess “fear” mentality (or the “icky ick!” factor) in some women, you might say, was ingrained into them more than the “putting aside fears and differences and learning to work alongside others different from you” mentality, as generally we think men must learn naturally in surviving on their own “out there”. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to know your role and subsume your identity to the group features.
You might say women are naturally more empathetic, but sometimes lesbians are loud, brash, and don’t play the “women social skills” very well. So they are not accepted within the group.
As I commented in the other thread though: on some teams, or in the military once DADT is abandoned, it properly would be the women who fear serving alongside lesbians that have the problem. Generally speaking, those who volunteer for the military are probably not of the Private Benjamin it’s-all-about-me mentality, in the first place.
Irrational fears should not dictate policy.
February 10, 2010, 4:21 pmPragmaticist says:
Eugene asks: “How can the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — or for that matter, any similar exclusion policy — be justified as to lesbians?”
Easy answer: It can’t.
February 10, 2010, 4:22 pmHavoc Jack says:
Note that homosexuality is seen more of a spectra of preferences than a binary on off switch. To the extent that a nominal lesbian has some preference towards men you still run into the issue with unit cohesion.
I’ve read somewhere that your average lesbian has sex with four and a half times as many men as your average straight woman.
February 10, 2010, 4:26 pmFrank Drackman says:
In my experience 99.999999999% of Female Marines were lesbians, at least thats what 99.9999999999% of the ones I hit on said…
February 10, 2010, 4:32 pmDon Miller says:
I was in the Navy from 1984 – 1990
I served on one of the few US Navy ships, at that time, that had female crew members.
It was common knowledge that at least 30% of the female crew members were lesbians.
I had female friends who told me that the female berthing compartments sometimes felt co-ed, with the open oggling and comments by the lesbians about the other women.
I admit, because of my Navy experiance, I am hesitant about repealing DADT. In the other services, you go through periods on deployments, where there is no personnal space, but for Navy crews, life aboard ship is all about no personal space. If you don’t get along with someone in your berthing compartment, there is no place to go.
To me, letting one openly gay man live in a berthing compartment with 17 straight men is the moral equivalent of letting 1 straight man live in the berthing compartment with 17 lesbians.
My personally feeling is is the DADT policy is repealed, Article 125 of the UCMJ needs to be repealed as well. Also military units, especially ships, need to relax their berthing compartment assignment rules and let the crew members figure out where and who they are most comfortable sharing berthing space with.
February 10, 2010, 4:33 pmEugene Volokh says:
Havoc Jack: If the worry is that bisexual women might cause unit cohesion because of possible relations with men, isn’t that worry even greater for heterosexual women?
Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality, does report that women with at least one same-sex partner since age 18 report a median of 20 sex partners since age 18, whereas women without any same-sex partners since age 18 report a median of 5 sex partners. That’s not quite the 4 1/2 times as many men figure, but it does appear that they have more sex partners, possibly with men as well as with women. But that doesn’t tell us much about their likely threat to unit cohesion, especially since men who haven’t had any same-sex partners report a median of 16 sex partners since age 18. If straight men’s promiscuity (I’m trying to use the term neutrally here; I’m not claiming any moral problem with it) with straight women doesn’t cause excessive trouble — of course, for the sort of noncombat units in which men and women are likely to be present together — then it’s hard to see how lesbian/bisexual women’s comparable level of promiscuity with men and women would cause excessive trouble.
February 10, 2010, 4:39 pmJon says:
I’m the executive officer of a mixed gender battalion in Iraq and have two observations; first, that lesbianism seems to be far more of an “open secret” and accepted than male homosexuality, and second, that there seem to be more instances of physical fights between lesbians than between men in the unit. This may be entirely coincidental and unrelated to DADT. I do wonder, though, if the dynamic would be different without DADT.
February 10, 2010, 4:42 pmHavoc Jack says:
Right, well, I’m not trying to argue for or against the validity of the unit cohesion argument. Just that allowing lesbians into an otherwise all male outfit doesn’t necessarily prevent all relationships.
February 10, 2010, 4:45 pmMaryG says:
To me, letting one openly gay man live in a berthing compartment with 17 straight men is the moral equivalent of letting 1 straight man live in the berthing compartment with 17 lesbians.
What does this mean exactly? Desire?
Fwiw, many gay guys are turned off by the habits/looks of their straight brothers. And you straight guys so turned on by lesbians? Think Billie Jean King types, and maybe save yourselves a cold shower?
February 10, 2010, 4:45 pmLeftCoastGuy says:
I have an explanation for the Air Force numbers…..Look at the number of evangelicals in their officer core.
February 10, 2010, 4:48 pmHouston Lawyer says:
There’s been a lot of study of “men in groups”. You don’t hear so much about women in groups. That is unit cohesion is far more prevelant in groups of men than in groups of women or mixed groups. In other words, women don’t play well together. My experience is that large numbers of women are all to happen to hang out with gay men, but not with lesbians. So having lesbians serve openly would lead to trouble among the women.
I would be stunned though if any governmental entity could get away with treating lesbians differently than gay men. However, the primary justification for not allowing openly gay people from service has always been based on unit cohesion and military effectiveness. In my view unit cohesion is primarily an issue with combat units, which are supposed to be exclusively male. Therefore I see that allowing lesbians to serve openly but not allowing gay men to serve openly could be rationalized, but I still don’t see the courts accepting that.
February 10, 2010, 4:49 pmdaftpunkydavid says:
if you base your argument on the non-binary nature of sexuality (which i happen to be convinced by), then the whole premise behind dadt, as applied to men and women of whatever sexuality falls to pieces, since, supposedly, those people that are presently favored by dadt could also have same-sex attraction…
February 10, 2010, 4:55 pmG.R. Mead says:
As a rational matter the point is conceded, same-sex attraction issues as to women are not the same character or nature of concern as to males when it comes to military matters. But it seems an unreasonable equality is demanded …
But then who said reason controlled any issue relating to sex? Reason is almost completely immaterial to sex.
Restraint, yes; reason, no.
February 10, 2010, 4:55 pmJKB says:
Sorry Don, but it should simply go that you get berthed by rank and department. No need for separation of sexes when you permit those with same sex orientation.
Your comment regarding the feel of the female berthing might explain some of the larger percentage of lesbian separations. Obvious ogling and comments doesn’t really keep the don’t tell portion of the law out of play. At a minimum it could spur a leader investigation into disruptions.
February 10, 2010, 4:56 pmEugene Volokh says:
Houston Lawyer: Why would it be so stunning for courts to accept the constitutionality of sex discrimination in the military between lesbians and gays? They’ve accepted the constitutionality of sex discrimination between men generally and women generally in the draft. I take it they’d accept the constitutionality of sex discrimination between men generally and women generally in deciding who can be in a combat unit.
The premise has been that sex discrimination that is otherwise unconstitutional is nonetheless permitted when it is tied to the special operational needs of the military. You and I agree that, even if the exclusion of male homosexuals is justified by unit cohesion concerns that are specific to men, the exclusion of female homosexuals wouldn’t be justified by such concerns. Why wouldn’t this be just as good a rationale for a sex classification aas the rationale given for the other military sex classifications?
February 10, 2010, 4:57 pmtamerlane says:
Camille Paglia (who should have some expertise on this) has commented and I’ve observed it in a variety of situations (womans sports teams, women’s prisons, and geographically isolated women’s colleges back in the day) that female sexual preference is much more plastic than male. I’ve also observed that lesbians in all-female situations will actively try to recruit women to whom they are attracted. I think this behavior is much more common among lesbians than homosexuals. I also think it could become a real problem in military situations where lesbians and heterosexual women are forced together in close quarters. In summary, I think “hitting” on heterosexuals by homosexuals may be much more of a problem in female military living quarters than in male ones.
February 10, 2010, 4:59 pmdaftpunkydavid says:
but this part of your argument flies in the face of years and years of countless studies that suggest the exact opposite: mainly, girls develop to be more social, able to work in groups and compromise, whereas boys are less inclined to do so, are more prone to solitude and intransigent.
February 10, 2010, 5:03 pmwith all due respect, i really don’t know how you could affirm what you wrote.
Houston Lawyer says:
Eugene
Just because you and I agree that it makes sense, doesn’t mean that the Courts would follow that it is allowed. The courts don’t allow segregation by race in prison even though prison administrators believe that such segregation would reduce intergroup violence. My prediction would be that DADT would overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court very shortly following the adoption of separate rules for gay men and lesbians.
February 10, 2010, 5:07 pmMaryG says:
mainly, girls develop to be more social, able to work in groups and compromise, whereas boys are less inclined to do so, are more prone to solitude and intransigent.
with all due respect, i really don’t know how you could affirm what you wrote.
With all due respect to those studies, reading them I always think they either undersample the lesbian participants in the “Girls are this” conclusions, or else they simply toss disregard the results of those girls who do not conform to the majority, and are so few in number as not to skew the group results.
ie/the “exception” to all those studies that girls learn passively, dislike competition and prefer cooperation, and prefer group activities over individual ones.
February 10, 2010, 5:15 pmMaryG says:
I’ve also observed that lesbians in all-female situations will actively try to recruit women to whom they are attracted.
Ah. Toaster Tales!
February 10, 2010, 5:19 pmRoscoe says:
We had a bit of a problem when I was stationed on Okinawa (about 25 years ago, so things may be different). The women all bunked together, and there were reportedly (I have no first hand information, but there was a criminal investigation taking place) some older lesbians who had gotten together and were pressuring some of the younger girls to put out.
Please don’t get me wrong, I am sure that the percentage of cads among lesbians is probably about the same as it is among straight men (or gay men, for that matter). The problem, as I see it, is that we have these young people (18-19), many of whom are away from home for the first time, and are cut off from family and friends. I don’t think it is fair to them to force them to bunk with people who may be sexually attracted to them.
That being said, I worked with Marines I thought were probably gay, and I thought they were fine. But I do think we need to solve the problem with living arrangements if we are going to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.
February 10, 2010, 5:24 pmG. May says:
Minor quibble here, but women (at least in the Marines) have much easier physical fitness requirements than men and also a leg up when it comes to promotions because of this and diversity requirements. “Fair” in the military is a bit of a different concept than the civilian version.
February 10, 2010, 5:34 pmSkyler says:
Everyone is missing the obvious answer.
Women aren’t allowed in ground combat. The jobs they do aren’t as critical for physical endurance and personal ferocity.
Women are excluded from most of the jobs where its most critical for unit cohesion.
February 10, 2010, 5:46 pmAndrea says:
I am a female that served in the Marine Corps. I cannot speak as to the other branches, but I can’t say that I met any woman in the Marine Corps that had a “princess ‘fear’ mentality.” I don’t think that anyone could get through boot camp without putting any fears and differences aside. As you mentioned, I believe that self-selection probably plays a pretty big role here.
Is it that the worry is that having lesbians using communal shower facilities with other women would make the women uncomfortable, because the straight women would be worried about being ogled by the lesbians?
Again, just from my experience, I don’t think that this is a sufficient justification. There just are not that many situations where women are forced to shower at the same time, even if the facilities are communal. We had communal facilities during boot camp. There, when you had the chance to shower, you got in and got out as quickly as humanly possible – not because you were worried about being ogled, but because you were worried about being yelled at by crazy drill instructors. You didn’t have time to think about sex, much less think about someone else that might be thinking about sex. Even during our one hour a day of “free time,” we had to shower, shine our boots, iron our clothes, and take care of any number of random things that the drill instructors made us do. If you wanted to write letters or do anything else at all, you weren’t taking a lingering shower. Even shy girls just didn’t care, and I don’t think the repeal of DADT would change this.
After bootcamp, when not deployed, enlisted women live in dorm-room style barracks that have a bathroom for each room (or for each suite of two rooms). I was safe and sound in Okinawa for most of my time, so I can’t say exactly how the showering situation works in the field. But I did several extended exercises, and these exercises were supposed to simulate actual war. We used communal showers during the exercises, and it was rare that there were more than one or two other people showering at the same time. If I had been worried about being ogled, I easily could have decided to wait to shower until no one else was there. In fact, some women just are not comfortable being naked in front of anyone, lesbian or not, and they made the choice to shower alone at a slight inconvenience. Personally, I never thought about the lesbian ogling aspect until now – and I knew several lesbians while I was in the Corps.
Which brings me to my next point. Another criticism I have of DADT is that “Don’t Tell” really just meant “Don’t Tell Your Superiors” to a lot of women. I found that, for the most part, female Marines were much more accepting of lesbians than male Marines were of gay men, and that this acceptance meant that lesbian Marines felt comfortable sharing the fact that they were lesbians. I think this strengthened morale and cohesion, not damaged it. My theory is that females, especially the type of females that join the military, often tend to get along better (in a friendship way) with males than with other females when they first meet new people. Women don’t always trust other women right away. It isn’t until there is a trust bond formed that women start to connect with other women. And the way to form that trust bond is to really get to know each other. I think that a woman’s act of coming out to another woman can help form that bond. This is, of course, just a theory – I’m not a sociologist – but it would be interesting to see some studies on this. Regardless, the fact I (and others) knew that other women were lesbians and worked alongside them without problems led me to the conclusion that we didn’t need DADT for unit cohesion, or any other reason. I hadn’t thought about breaking it down to applying the policy differently for gay men versus lesbians before today, but I think my experience is probably (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that supports the theory that DADT makes even less sense as it is applied to lesbians.
February 10, 2010, 5:51 pmBen P says:
Wouldn’t that just be said then to go back to the pre-DADT type rules, which someone in an earlier thread put as “DGC – Don’t Get Caught.”
As I understand it, before DADT the military rules mirrored the older state style laws that catagorically made it an offense under the UCMJ to engage in some sort of “deviant activity” whether or not it was inside or outside the military, and soldiers who had the “propensity” to engage in such activity were declared unfit for service.
As I understand DADT, it didn’t change any of the old rules, it merely prohibited commanders from directly inquiring into the “propensity” aspect, and only allowed them to investigate the “conduct” aspect.
Even if DADT is repealed, I’m sure regulations theoretically prohibiting cohabitation among members of a unit and prohibiting sexual harassment and all the other associated regulations will stay in place. (Enforcement may be another issue) It would essentially just leave conduct that was outside of the military, generally outside of the scope of military regulations.
February 10, 2010, 5:54 pmMaryG says:
Thanks Andrea! Informative.
February 10, 2010, 6:07 pmTim says:
Were you ever in the military?
Women serve in front line positions right alongside men. Women shoot patriot missiles, command Field Artillery battalions, serve as MPs arresting POWs, fly bombers, etc. My brigade, while it had very few women, definitely had them, and they were in the field right with us. I think you and Professor Volokh both have a false sense of separation between men and women that doesn’t exist. Yes, women have different showers, different sleeping areas, etc., in garrison, but in the field, it’s all the same, there’s no privacy to speak of, and women and men work together to get the job done.
I don’t know what military you served in, but that’s how my experience was.
And to whoever said Article 125 needs to be repealed, you’re not only correct, I’d argue that it has already happened by SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas. Had Lawrence been decided on equal protection grounds, I wouldn’t think so, but the majority opinion in the case struck down the statute based on substantive due process. Obviously what constitutes substantive due process would be, at least potentially, different in a UCMJ proceeding, but I really can’t imagine what judge would find any redeeming value in Article 125 of the UCMJ. Find me any man in the military who hasn’t had a blow job since he’s been on active duty and then, perhaps, Article 125 could stand. Considering that Article 125 is capable of invading the marital bedroom and putting a Soldier in jail for getting a bj from his wife, I just don’t see how it could hold up under Lawrence.
February 10, 2010, 6:09 pmAndrea says:
With all due respect, I have to correct you here. Unless things have changed since 2002, I would not call the requirements “much” easier. There are three parts to the physical fitness test.
The first, crunches, is the same for both sexes for both scoring and minimum score.
The second is a bent arm hang for women, and pullups for men. This difference does not necessarily make it “easier” for women. A man that can do 20 pullups, which gets the max points, cannot necessarily do the arm hang for even the minimum time women must hang (I think it was 20 seconds). These tests test different strengths, and each gender trains for that particular strength.
The third test is a three mile run. It is easier for a woman to get the maximum number of points than it is for a man here – I believe that a perfect score for a female is 21 minutes, and a perfect score is 18 minutes for men. From what I remember, the minimums were around 30 or 31 minutes for both sexes.
From what I remember, if people were even halfway to the minimums on anything, they were assigned extra physical training in my unit, male or female.
That being said, I believe that the tests should be equal. I think that one of the reasons men in the military tend to be more sexist than non-military men is that they see women being treated differently on a daily basis. I’m currently working on an article that advocates for ending the ban on women in combat, and one of my suggestions is that testing should become more focused on combat skills rather than generic physical fitness. Everyone, male or female, would have to qualify for combat positions. I think that unit cohesion and overall perception of women would improve if men knew that the female fighting next to him did well on the same test he did.
To bring this post back to the current thread – I don’t think that courts would have a problem dealing with DADT differently for females than for males. Courts have consistently held that gender discrimination in the military passes scrutiny when regulations relate to combat readiness, unit cohesion, etc. But I think that enforcing the DADT differently would be yet another way that women are treated different, and therefore another reason for some military men to resent military women. So as a policy matter, I would hate to see it happen.
February 10, 2010, 6:36 pmwfjag says:
Up to the last sentence, you generally had it right. However, any conduct which is service discrediting or prejudicial to good order and discipline can be charged as a crime under Art. 134, UCMJ (10 USC 934) — whether it occurs during duty time or not, and whether on or off post.
The general rule is I don’t want to know about your damn private life, and, if it is forced to my attention, you’ll pay the price. I have better things to do than spend 90% of my time on the few people who don’t keep their private lives in order (and so private). You were a civilian before you became a service member, and, I will not hesitate to return you to that status, as that leaves me with the time to deal with the unit’s needs — like training, supply, operations, pay, promotions, etc., and, to be with my family.
Adultery is a crime, as is a group grope, beastiality, sodomy, consorting with prostitutes, possessing child porn, and having sex with someone incapable of giving valid consent. This pretty much means, I don’t care who you F**k, as long as you don’t do something that results in me hearing about it. Either don’t do it, or don’t get caught.
As for lesbians in the military, my experience has been that lesbians, like most women, seek a stable relationship, and so, I didn’t hear about their sex lifes. DADT means that no one up the food chain could tell me to ask about it, either. Gay men, like many (perhaps most) men, seek variety, so their sexploits were more likely to become public, and so the command could not ignore them. It’s when a person’s private life becomes a matter of public concern that it can adversely affect unit cohesion.
However, I generally agree with Houston Lawyer — the chances of Congress or the courts distinguishing between gay men and lesbians is essentially zero.
February 10, 2010, 6:38 pmLee says:
I have to second Don Miller’s point above. I have a very good friend who did 27 years as an EOD in the Navy. A couple of years ago we had a lengthy discussion about DADT. He had no issues whatsoever with gay men in the military, but did express problems with gay women. His objection was that the gay women tended to be much more aggressive in their openness when in contact with other women aboard the ships.
I think this could be somewhat of a slippery slope and could lead to some interesting legal situations because it seems evident to me that the DoD will tread lightly when it comes to how they handle the punishment of harassment issues when the offending party is of the same sex.
February 10, 2010, 6:41 pmDoesNotMatter says:
I’m going to ahead and post the only argument that I think is actually viable one more than bias in favor of DADT:
If hetero males and hetero females are separated (washrooms, single housing etc.) out of concern over potential sexual harrassment, then how do you justify* letting gays and lesbians serve alongside them unless in future you provide four sets of facilities for each subset of your servicemembers ?
Moreover that still does not fully protect your gay and lesbian servicemembers because while they’re separated from the homophobes, they are still mixed with each other – predator and victim share the same sex in that case.
*In the sense that males and females are safeguarded from sexual predation of the other sex – okay mostly the female sex is safeguarded from the male – so shouldn’t heteros (both sexes) also be kept safe from people of their own sex who might develop sexual urges urges towards them ?
Obivously even this argument quickly develops a lot of holes but it is the only that I see that does not rely already disproven so called facts. It relies on “We don’t force /want heteros to live together with people with whom exist a potential dual sexual interest (man-woman), should we force heteros to live with people who do have an sexual interest in them but they do not in turn ? If we do, why would it be right to have homosexuals live with people with whom exists a potential dual sexual interest (man-man, woman-woman) ?”
This argument also suffers that it can readily boiled down to the crude form of “If the heteros can’t live with people the would want to have sex with, why should homosexuals ?”
All that said I think that since the above is only argument for DADT it is high time to have it go the way of the dodo and throw out separate gender facilities along with it.
February 10, 2010, 6:53 pmThere is a proven remedy for rape, it is called death. Deal it out enough, do so publically and sooner or later you run out of rapists.
Caleb says:
@ArthurKirkland Abomination? Where exactly in the Bible (assuming that is your source) does it say that homosexual acts between women is an abomination? I don’t recall that in the Bible at all. The few times homosexual acts are referenced, they are entirely directed toward the activities of men, not women.
I mean, have you read the Book of Ruth?
February 10, 2010, 7:03 pmSkyler says:
Tim, get back on your high horse. I’ve been in the military for a few more generations than you appear to have been and am still in, but the argument is not changed by who is stating the argument.
Women are excluded by law from serving in ground combat positions. The army tends to get around that by calling their infantrywomen “military police” but that’s still the law.
February 10, 2010, 7:18 pmTennLion says:
As an old retired Infantryman, I entered the service shortly after the WAC (Women’s Army Corps) was dissolved and women were assigned to functional branches. It was widely accepted that most WACs were in fact lesbians, even when the official policy on homosexuality was much stricter than under DADT. The actual practice, as opposed to official policy/law, was that lesbianism is a completely different animal than male homosexuality; lesbians then were already under a de facto DADT, whereas male homosexuals were actively prosecuted. In that sense, DADT merely evened up the playing field. And my personal feelings, based on my experience, would be to continue that dichotomy; officially if possible, unofficially if necessary. Building teams out of individual men (that unit cohesion thing) is very different than team-building among all-women or mixed groups, and is different in combat units than in service support units. Having a gay on your team is not necessarily disruptive, provided I think that the individual wasn’t flagrant. That’s why, I think, the original proposal was actually, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Flaunt.”
February 10, 2010, 7:43 pmgwinje says:
Frank Drackman:
You hit on 100 billion female marines? Pretty impressive. What happened with the one confessed straight one?
February 10, 2010, 8:19 pmJohn Herbison says:
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has upheld a post-Lawrence challenge to the constitutional validity of Article 125 in United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198, 205 (U.S.A.F. 2004). That case involved an Air Force sergeant who committed a sexual act with a subordinate airman in his chain of command, so the Court did not have occasion to consider any marital privacy issues.
February 10, 2010, 9:01 pmFrank Drackman says:
Hey, with all the Brainpower in the room..Riddle me this…
“Why is 2 chicks kissing Hot, but 2 guys kissing is Disgusting?”
I’m thinkin its an Evolutionary thing, the same reason your hot sister doesnt look as hot to you as her less hot friends…
February 10, 2010, 9:07 pmand I don’t mean I wanta see Barbara Mikulski giving Joy Behar tongue, but Michelle Malkin/Ann Coulter??? I might waste a little time watchin that…
JH says:
The DADT doctrine doesn’t prohibit soldiers (male or female) who have homosexual preference, no? As I’ve understood it, it only prohibits personel from asking or intentionally revealing their preference. If this understanding is correct, I think the original question posed by Eugene is tackling a non-issue.
February 10, 2010, 9:11 pmRandy says:
wfjag: “The general rule is I don’t want to know about your damn private life.”
I’m sure you apply the same rule to yourself. that applies to you as well. So, if for instance, if you talk about your girlfriend, it should be okay for a guy to talk about his boyfriend, right?
But if you are so careful that you never talk about your sexploits with anyone at anytime in the military, then I guess you could demand that no gay person ever talk about his sex life either.
But what if a guy is talking about his Judy Garland CDs, how much he loves Rupaul, and he happens to make the best cake your unit has ever seen — would that be crossing the line by sharing too much information about himself?
February 10, 2010, 9:19 pmajb says:
several thoughts, not related (in sense of flow).
In many cultures, men would engage in homosexual relation while away at war (Romans) for reason of practicality , I would suppose (combined with different morale landscape). But I don’t know. Seems interesting though. Some cultures embraced homosexuality in the military? Maybe…
Of course it would seem unequal for DADT to apply to men not women. On its face, if not in a utilitarian sense.
This one is pure observation. Lesbians seem not to get as must bad media as gay men. Lesbians are often celebrated. And, lesbian women often seem wishy-washy about their orientation, often changing roles. This may be why lesbians are often over-looked in the military (in response to above posts mentioning how women seem to get away with it more). Often times, lesbians are not considered “serious” gays, perhaps because of the popularity of straight women engaging in “girl on girl” action.
February 10, 2010, 9:22 pmRandy says:
JH: “As I’ve understood it, it only prohibits personel from asking or intentionally revealing their preference.”
The problem, JH, is that often a gay or lesbian has NOT told or intentionally revealed their orientation. (It’s not a preference, btw). Many are discharged because someone found out about them, despite many attempts to hide it. Many lie about it to their superiors and to other servicemen, but that doesn’t stop people from trying to find out the truth and then outing them.
They do this by scouring places like Facebook, gay dating sites, following them to gay bars, opening email and regular mail to see what is written, and so on. All this is prohibited, of course, but not once has any CO been disciplined for violating the Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass portion of the regulation.
February 10, 2010, 9:24 pmNoah David Simon says:
I wouldn’t want to fight with women either. Straight ones. ….and I really don’t get where you are going with this. I can’t think how many times I nearly got my ass beat down by jealous lesbians on the NYC subways because I was looking at them. Bad for morale for certain.
February 10, 2010, 9:42 pmNoah David Simon says:
…and I would agree with some of the commenters above like Jon. Lesbians are more likely in my opinion to be Bisexual then their male counterparts.
Honestly I would have no problem having gays in the military (just like women). In fact I think having a better communicating sex or personality would be a positive thing. The military needs the best PR in the world and if it is good for Madison Ave then it is good for the soldiers that have to sell their occupation every day.
…but the soldiers out with their guns fighting the war should be straight guys.
February 10, 2010, 9:58 pm(my reasons are in a previous post related to this issue)
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Lesbians | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] from: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Lesbians [...]
February 10, 2010, 10:10 pmDontAsk says:
No, they are not analogous. The biological and social norm for humans is male-female. Why are liberals anti-science?
February 10, 2010, 10:17 pmDontAsk says:
If those who say homosexuality is genetic are correct, the Romans must have been genetically distinct from modern humans. Or, there is an element of choice involved. Take your pick.
February 10, 2010, 10:20 pmArthurKirkland says:
@
You had me before the Book of Ruth.
February 10, 2010, 10:49 pmJohn Herbison says:
I am puzzled. The only sex act I noticed in the Book of Ruth (apart from the genealogy in the last five verses of Chapter 4) resulted in Boaz impregnating Ruth, whom he had purchased to be his wife.
Ruth and Orpah did kiss their mother-in-law, but there is no indication that their intent was sexual.
What am I missing?
February 10, 2010, 11:37 pmChris Travers says:
I like what the Elder Pliny said about Gaulish women….. Something about the fact that it was really inadvisable to pick a fight with a Gaulish man because they were very strong, but really, really avoid getting into a fight with Gaulish women because they will REALLY beat the crap out of you….
Of course gotta love the old Celtic notions of gender equality in armed raids. Early missionaries described women going into battle carrying infants and hacking eachother to pieces…..
I suppose I spend way too much time studying early European cultures….
February 11, 2010, 12:45 amTim says:
Fraternization is an entirely different discussion. A junior cannot consent to sex with his superiors. That it was homosexual in nature and sodomy is therefore irrelevant. That case, while interesting, fails to address private, sexual conduct between two consenting adults, and so its parallels to Lawrence failed. Were those two men not members of the same command, I’m willing to bet that the conclusion would go the other way. That was the point I was trying to make.
Thanks for the pointer, though. The case has a very interesting analysis of the as-applied challenge.
February 11, 2010, 1:50 amG. May says:
I appreciate the respect, but allow me to assist you. This is not a correction, this is your opinion. I won’t quote the rest of your response, but will respond to it.
After conducting several experiments in 4 different mixed gender units, I found that when men actually practiced the flex-arm hang that only females are required to do, they routinely outperform women by a significant margin. Most female Marines liked to brag about how hard it was for men to do the flexed arm hang, but that was only because it was an exercise the men had never attempted.
Personally, the first time I ever tried it I decided to drop off the bar after 90 seconds with my chin still above the bar, when the max for women is 70. The exercise is a joke. Especially considering that the chin can dip well below the bar as long as he arms retain a minimum flex.
Conversely, most female Marines are never capable of reaching the minimum requirement of 3 deadhang pullups for males, even after significant training. I can count on one hand the few female Marines with whom I’ve served who could reach the minimum standard for upper body strength required for men. Their total pull-ups were 18, 11, and 3 respectively. And despite their unusual display of upper body strength, none were able to compete against the average male in close combat grappling.
Your numbers on the 3 mile run are a little off. I’ll keep it to the age 18-26 bracket. You have the perfect score correct, but the minimums are 28 minutes for men, 31 minutes for women. Crunches are the only event that is equal among sexes.
The point is that a woman can come in 3 minutes behind a man and still get the same number of points on the test. A woman can get assistance to start from above the bar then merely keep her arms flexed while hanging from a bar for 15 seconds (the actual minimum, not 20), while a man must start hanging from the bar, arms straight, and pull his chin above the bar three times to equal the score of the woman. If you think this isn’t significantly harder, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
This has a direct effect on promotion points. And you’re right, it has a direct effect on perceptions of performance.
The point is that yes, the Marine Corps trains and tests different strengths based on sex. We are in agreement that this should not be the case. However the reality is that the average woman will not be able to compete with the average man in terms of strength and endurance – two things vital for combat performance in line combat units.
In all my countless hours of MCMAP training, I never once saw a woman best a man in close combat grappling. This is a fact of life. Generic tests of physical fitness aside, this grim reality is what you will have to address in your article. The consequence of ending the ban you refer to will be that women will be extraordinarily underrepresented, which our current military climate will not tolerate. The implications of the results are unacceptable to current American society. Good luck in your efforts.
February 11, 2010, 1:50 amSteve P. says:
I’ve been in NYC subways plenty, and I can’t recall a time when I thought I might get my ass beat down by jealous lesbians. Perhaps the problem is not with them?
Thanks for sharing your experiences, Andrea.
February 11, 2010, 9:58 amDjDiverDan says:
Just a few random thought here. First, if I was a male in the military and trying to hook up with a female in my unit who I found attractive, I would be much less disappointed (deflated?) by a rejection in the form of “sorry, not interested – I’m a lesbian” than one of “sorry, but I’m just not interested in a relationship with you.” The first rejection says “I don’t consider sexual relationships with ANY men” while the second says “I’m straight, but I find you so unappealling that I wouldn’t consider it.” In that regard, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may well result in unnecessary blows to the male ego. Second, it’s been my experience that straight males (myself included) are more comfortable in social relationships with lesbians than with gay men, while straight women are more comfortable with gay men than with lesbians. My personal theory is that straight men have something in common with lesbians – we are both physically attracted to women – while straight women and gay men have something different in common – they are both physically attracted to men. Because we (straight men) understand the physical attraction to women, we don’t view lesbians as nearly so alien; however, we just don’t “get” the attraction that gay men have to other men, making male gayness that much more alien to us. That’s not to say we can’t have social relationships with gay men – I have a few gay friends – but there is always something missing (obviously, talk about sex and intimate relationships is off limits, as it will make one or both of us uncomfortable), a certain distance that just can’t be bridged. All that having been said, I think DADT is ridiculous, and if gays or lesbians want to serve in the military, for god’s sake let them. Any discomfort that straight men might feel about a gay man in their unit is no worse than the discomfort felt by southern white males when the armed forces were first integrated and they were forced to live and work closely for the first time in their lives with blacks – they’ll get over it, and discover that their bigotry was unfounded.
February 11, 2010, 10:02 amOwen H. says:
Should we keep out those that eat shellfish? God hates shrimp.
February 11, 2010, 10:08 amOwen H. says:
The only problem with your comparison is that the gay men are already there in the compartment with 17 straight guys. And in many, many cases, they also already know it. Repealing DADT doesn’t alter that one bit.
February 11, 2010, 10:12 amOwen H. says:
Perhaps the UCMJ should be changed to put this requirement on everyone. After all, right now straights can’t be tossed out for telling you they went to the movies with their girlfriend or wife, but a gay man can if he even mentions his boyfriend. After all, you must object when the straight simply mention their significant others, right?
February 11, 2010, 10:16 amJohn Herbison says:
I agree in part. Sergeant Marcum had been acquitted of a charge of forcible sodomy, but convicted of consensual sodomy under Article 125. That the sexual act was between two men was not relevant, but that it was sodomy is essential to the decision. The Court of Appeals “assume[d] without deciding” that “Appellant’s conduct involve[d] private, consensual sexual activity between adults[.]” 60 M.J., at 207.
The Court distinguished Lawrence because this conduct, which though it occurred off-base at the accused’s apartment and in private, involved a situation “where consent might not easily be refused”, as that phrase is used in Lawrence, because of the disparity in rank and the chain of command. The Court of Appeals ruled that these facts took the particular conduct at issue outside the rubric of the liberty interest protected in Lawrence.
That decision does not foreclose an as applied challenge to Article 125 based upon Lawrence under other circumstances.
February 11, 2010, 11:12 amConnie says:
Joke: Why don’t they let women fight wars? Because they don’t know when to QUIT.
February 11, 2010, 11:35 amwfjag says:
Owen, DADT isn’t in the UCMJ. It is a separate law Congress passed and the President signed — in 1993 when the Dems. controlled both houses of Congress and the Pres., Clinton, was also a Dem. Like many Clinton compromises, it represented a middle path — in the case of DADT, allowing the military a means of eliminating from the service people whose conduct threatened unit functioning, but, without resort to criminal proceedings (or, in most cases, loss of benefits of military service).
A violation of DADT results in an administrative separation. A separation pursuant to a UCMJ action is based upon a federal felony conviction, as the separation is either a dismissal (for Officers), or a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) or Dishonorable Discharge (DD)(for Enlisted). The worse discharge one can get pursuant to an administrative action founded upon DADT is a General Discharge under Other Than Honorable Conditions. A Gen. Dis. OTH results in some, minor losses of benefits of having served in the military, but not important ones. Further, to receive a Gen. Dis. OTH under DADT, other aggravating conduct is needed — which conduct frequently borders on a separate UCMJ violation (like homosexual conduct in return for compensation — which looks a lot like prostitution). Otherwise, the discharge will be based upon the character of service member’s service without regard to the DADT proceeding. See, e.g., Army Regulation 635-200, Chap. 15, for Army policy on DADT discharges. As an Honorable Discharge is the presumption, unless the service member has engaged in other misconduct, he or she will receive the same discharge and qualify for the same benefits as if he or she fulfilled his or her complete service obligation. Given that one of those benefits is the 9/11 GI Bill (which has excellent educational benefits), getting discharged under DADT frequently isn’t much of a hardship (unless you really like deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan every 2 to 3 years). A BCD or DD from a court martial conviction results in the loss of most or all benefits, in addition to the legal disabilities resulting from a federal conviction.
Eliminate DADT, and resort will be made to UCMJ based actions to eliminate those whose conduct disrupts unit functioning. If that’s the result you seek, then support repeal of DADT. If not, then you need to spend some time educating yourself — as what is appearing in the press and proclaimed by pundits (on all sides) is so superficial as to be almost misleading.
I realize that understanding the consequences of repealing DADT requires more than Lady Gaga’s knowledge of how the military functions. You should study the issues more thoroughly before forming an opinion. From your comment, it appears that you have no military experience. You might want to spend some time talking to JAGs, senior Non-Comissioned Officers and senior Officers who have held command, and ask them how they would deal with deal with any personnel problems arising from openly gay or bi service members in the absence of DADT. I suspect that the answer will be to court-martial them.
February 11, 2010, 11:58 amJeff Hall says:
Interesting. Did you reading give any clue about how to meet these women? Details, please.
February 11, 2010, 12:08 pmAndrea says:
G. May –
I don’t want to get too carried away and hijack the thread completely, but I wanted to say thanks for fixing my numbers – It’s been a while, and I never had to worry about the minimums. I do agree with you that the average man will beat the average woman. I just think that the above-average woman should be allowed in combat positions, and the below-average man should not.
You also bring up a good point about the promotions being based on the physical fitness test (“PFT” for all you non-military types) scores – this, of course, leads to resentment of females by males, and is unfair in many situations. One of the reasons behind the difference in score is that it is easier to get promoted in combat positions, so allowing higher PFT scores for women gets them a leg up and a better chance of being promoted in the non-combat positions. This is, of course, not fair to the men in non-combat positions. One solution might be to standardize the PFT, but weigh it differently in the promotions score depending on the job, while adding additional factors into the equation that are relevant to the job. For example, I was in intelligence, at the division level. I spent most of my time doing analysis in a vault. As far as the actual job went, physical fitness was not really that important. It seems that resources would be well spent developing tests for each position, and promoting people that are good at their jobs, rather than basing a promotion on how fast you can run three miles or how long you can hang on a bar. Of course, it is important to have minimum standards – it is the Marine Corps, and we don’t want to look like the Air Force :).
I do want to point out to those who are not in the military that a lower standard on the PFT does not mean that women in the military are not in shape – there are still high standards. My unit trained together, did the same runs, same exercises, etc. on an almost daily basis – after bootcamp, we did not separate training by gender.
I would like to know, G. May – As a career Marine, and a male, what are your thoughts on the DADT policy as applied to lesbians?
February 11, 2010, 12:32 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Homosexuality isn’t a preference? Which word would you use to describe it, Randy? A compulsion? I have absolutely no problem describing my heterosexuality as a preference.
February 11, 2010, 1:39 pmJohn Herbison says:
The language dispute is whether “sexual preference” or “sexual orientation” is more accurate. Orienttion is innate; preference is a choice that (at least) one alternative is more desired than others. For example, someone whose orientation is bisexual may have a preference for sex with men or a preference for sex with women. For another example, one whose orientation is exclusive to one gender may prefer a partner with a particular hair color or within a particular ethnic group.
(Mr. Chapman, did you try both homosexuality and heterosexuality in determining your “preference”? If not, I surmise that your actions reflect your orientation.)
February 11, 2010, 1:54 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Semantics. He didn’t make a big deal out of it, so I won’t either, but I think nitpicking over the word “preference” because of a perceived connotation is absurd.
February 11, 2010, 2:06 pmamart says:
You are mistaken– the Bible only calls sodomy an abomination (see Leviticus 18:22). The same book calls eating shellfish an abomination. The Bible must be read in the context of the time it was written in– times have changed. Do you eat shellfish? Raw meat? Wear clothing made of different fibers? You are also an abomination.
February 11, 2010, 3:28 pmOwen H. says:
wfjag- do you understand that your extensive writing has nothing to do with the actual issue here? And that you completely ignored what I was actually talking about?
Here’s a shocker for you- if someone in service sexually harasses someone else in their unit, I don’t care if they are gay or straight, and neither should the regulations they live under. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
February 11, 2010, 6:42 pmOwen H. says:
But what about the shrimp?!? Shellfish are an abomination too! No shrimp in the MREs!
Sorry, just treating the original statement with all of the seriousness it deserves.
February 11, 2010, 6:45 pmwfjag says:
Well, Owen, you’re the one who, in a thread involving DADT, asserted that the UCMJ should be changed. I noted that DADT isn’t part of the UCMJ, and it’s repeal will mean that the command will resort to criminal proceedings under the UCMJ, instead of the fairly favorable administrative proceedings used in DADT eliminations.
I will not assume that your words mean what they say. Still, don’t expect me to read your mind.
You may support the repeal of DADT or not, or support its amendment so that it only applies to gay men and not lesbians, or not — which is the topic of this thread. However, don’t argue from ignorance. If you don’t understand how DADT is implemented and the effects of a discharge under it, you don’t understand the effects of its repeal or amendment.
February 11, 2010, 6:54 pmOwen H. says:
And yet, you still didn’t respond to the actual substance of my comment. Any chance you are going to address what I actually was talking about? Or are you just going to keep playing barracks lawyer and ignore the real issue?
February 11, 2010, 7:46 pmG. May says:
To be quite honest, I never considered separate applications or implications of DADT with regards to lesbians. Perhaps you could be more specific with your question? Or at least rephrase? I’m sure the comprehension problem is with me, so please forgive.
Frankly, the original article here strikes me as a little silly. The questions raised by it just seem like mental masturbation. After all, modern society beats it into our heads at all levels that stereotyping – especially with regards to crafting policy – is a great injustice. Yet the article seems to rely heavily upon stereotypes. I’m puzzled why Prof. Volokh is skeptical of the possibility of sexual tension in a mixed sexuality unit of all males, yet advancing an argument which seems to rely heavily on lesbian sterotypes. There’s a big can of worms there.
I can’t imagine any institution, especially our military, being able to craft a coherent policy that further discriminates between gender and sexual preference. As a senior SNCO, I would seriously tell someone to fuck off and try to administer that nightmare themselves. I’m willing to bet a Sergeant’s Major symposium would arrive at the same conclusion.
Perhaps getting back to your question (as I’m sure I’m misunderstanding it), and the seeming disparity between the application or misapplication of DADT toward lesbians. Most studies I’ve seen concerning the military just flat out never reflect my personal experience, so all I can do is theorize like everyone else.
I’d have to guess that it comes down to military lifestyle and the inherent difficulties many women seem to have with it. The military is a man’s environment through and through. It’s very physical (I realize I’m speaking from a Marine’s perspective here) and very aggressive by nature. It can be very rigid and very draconian. Men tend to thrive in these sorts of environments, while most women don’t. Some women perform very well despite this, but many don’t.
The fact of the matter is that women generally have it damn hard in a military environment through no fault of their own. You and I both know that when someone wants out, they know what to do to make it happen. Lesbians have a relatively easy way out that doesn’t involve violating the UCMJ, crafting a case for hardship discharge (Pregnancy? Riiight), or ruining their performance record.
Those are just my initial thoughts on the subject, so forgive the haphazard way in which I presented it. I hope there was an answer to your question somewhere (and it’s good to be back on topic).
February 11, 2010, 8:52 pmreadery says:
One could make the same argument for civil rights laws as applied to military contractors. It’s very unlikely that a women-only military-related company would meaningfully diminish employment opportunities for men. Yet anti-preference laws for military contractors cover them. Why?
One argument is that the government can rationally consider discrimination — treating women differently from men — invidious. Professor Volokh has made this very argument in a different setting. If the idea that treating men and women differently is invidious represents a legitimate governmental principle, and government can rationally apply this principle in its legislation regarding the general citizenry, then it can certainly apply the same principle to its own conduct, such as its choice of who to use as military contractors or soldiers.
Thus government can rationally treat male and female homosexuals identically and refuse to treat them differently, for the simple reason that it can rationally believe that treating them disparately would be invidious, and hence it can rationally take steps to refrain from invidious behavior and avoid creating an invidious situation.
Indeed, if it did treat them differently, doubtless Professor Volokh’s next argument would be that doing so would be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has actually applied such a one-two punch before: in the Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstatd v. Baird pair of cases, where it first held laws against contraceptives unconstitutional as applied to married couples and subsequently held that treating married and unmarried couples differently was unconstitutional. It’s worth noting that although both cases were originally ostensibly rational-basis cases, the Supreme Court subsequently repudiated the use of the rational basis standard for contraception matters and held that the strict scrutiny standard applies (See e.g. Cary v. Population Services) Thus these cases are not real rational-basis cases and the Court’s treatment of them isn’t typical of the rational basis standard. This type of one-two punch doesn’t work for real rational-basis cases.
February 11, 2010, 10:34 pmreadery says:
Moreover, avoiding invidiousness has obvious military benefits. Treating men and women differently is perceived — perhaps irrationally — as unfair by the public. Avoiding a perception of fairness, whether or not academically justified, helps the military recruit and retain personnel. Perceptions of unfariness distract from the military’s mission, hurt unit cohesion and hurt people’s will to fight. Further, law professors’ and judges’ perceptions of what is fair or unfair simply do not matter for military purposes. It is the perceptions of potential combat recruits and members of the combat forces — a quite different demographic — which matter.
February 11, 2010, 10:47 pmreadery says:
Professor Volokh,
You appear to have removed an earlier post in which I argued that the rational basis test doesn’t permit you to ask the question you are asking but only permits asking a more general question. An argument that the question as you are framing it is not a legally relevant question indeed addresses the specific question you are asking, Even though it’s not the answer you wanted to hear, it is nonetheless directly topical. I believe you removed the post in error.
February 11, 2010, 10:55 pmThrobert McGee says:
Personally, I’d be like, “Pssst, Mary — don’t make a Shande für die
GoyimStraightz-im!”(I mean, being able to bake an excellent cake from scratch is a totally cool skill that everyone appreciates — but the Garland and RuPaul stuff is just a bit fried-chicken-and-watermelon, if you get my drift.)
February 12, 2010, 6:11 amThrobert McGee says:
To be even more specific, Lev. 18:22 only calls male/male anal buggery an abomination — or at least, it’s my understanding that the rabbinical consensus in the Jewish Talmud interprets the verse in this extremely specific way.
NB: Nonetheless, the Talmud also prohibits other homosexual acts, such as male/male fellatio and mutual masturbation, and lesbianism generally — but while these acts are “sinful,” they aren’t regarded as being, in themselves, violations of Lev. 18:22. Rather, the basic case made against homosexual acts other than male/male buggery (which is a sui generis offense) is that such frolics are “too much like what those Gentile pagans do”.
Presumably, even a totally non-penetrative homosexual act such as two dudes trading handjobs would be further suspect on the grounds that it might LEAD to a subsequent violation of Lev. 18:22, viz., doin’ what-what in the butt. However, the mutual J.O. in and of itself is not the “abomination” spoken of in Leviticus.
February 12, 2010, 6:44 ameris says:
Who cares?
The military is about fighting, not f*cking.
February 12, 2010, 11:41 amlupe says:
As a life-long lesbian this made me laugh out loud. If you are going to marshal eyepopping stats like this as “evidence” supporting something, please provide a link. I know many, many lesbians who have had zero (zero) sex with men, and many, many others who had obligatory “let’s see if I can be straight” sex while they were young but never again, so your stats seem quite ridiculous, and perhaps derived from a wishful thinking from a men’s porno flick.
February 12, 2010, 11:46 amG. May says:
Go hang out at a barracks sometime.
February 12, 2010, 12:07 pmJohn Herbison says:
For what it’s worth, today’s Washington Post reports an interesting opinion poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104873.html?hpid=topnews
February 12, 2010, 1:13 pmRandy says:
daniel chapman: “Homosexuality isn’t a preference? Which word would you use to describe it, Randy? A compulsion? I have absolutely no problem describing my heterosexuality as a preference.”
I would use the same word that has been used for quite some time and that you are quite familiar: orientation. Is there a problem with that word?
Don’t Ask: “If those who say homosexuality is genetic are correct, the Romans must have been genetically distinct from modern humans. Or, there is an element of choice involved. Take your pick.”
Or, it might mean that far more men are actually interested in same sex encounters than is generally believed, but repress it for various factors. So when a society is accepting of it, it exhibits itself more often.
February 12, 2010, 6:36 pmRandy says:
It’s always interesting when people try to argue that being gay is a choice, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Not a single person who is gay has said that they choose to be gay. Even Exodus, the leading so-called “Ex gay” group, says that in the best of circumstances, only about a third of people who want to stop being gay succeed in doing so, and even then it’s a long hard slough.
But it’s a lot easier to discriminate people for choices they make, rather than for being who they are, isn’t it?
February 12, 2010, 8:08 pmJohn Herbison says:
It would seem (at least anecdotally) that there are far more ex-straights than there are ex-gays.
February 12, 2010, 8:28 pmdizzy spins says:
I just happened across this website, and while this post raises some interesting points, the comments are unbelievable. Lifting DADT is not about allowing gays and lesbians into the military–we’re ALREADY in the military. Most servicemembers know someone gay in the Armed Forces.
Gay men are ALREADY sharing barracks with straights. And the gay soldiers aren’t behaving themselves because theyre afraid of being outed–they behave themselves because they are morally-upstanding soldiers. And because–SHOCK–theyre probably not attracted to most of their comrades. ESPECIALLY after spending months and months with them in small quarters.
And if they crossed the line, they would be reprimanded, discharged or court-martialed, just like a straight male soldier would be if he made untoward advances towards a female soldier. Ok so maybe somebody sneaks a peek–thats worth making our Armed Forces anything less than at their peak potential?
Its irrelevant if being gay is a choice and its irrelevant if the Bible says being gay is an abomination. You can be an unwed mother, adulterer, or Satanist and still serve in the US Armed Forces.
The bottom line is this is such a minute issue–and a waster of Congress’ time. Its an embarrassment that anyone even cares about the orientation of our soldiers, and future generations will see it that way, just like th rest of the civilized world does now. Let any upstanding citizen who can pull their weight serve.
February 12, 2010, 9:59 pmChris Travers says:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that men were more likely to be solidly straight or solidly gay, and women were more likely to be mostly straight or mostly gay (with more bisexual tendencies). This wouldn’t mean that many individuals on the extremes wouldn’t exist, just that women were more likely to have moderate bisexual tendencies than men.
This being said, most of my lesbian friends (of which I have a few) have tended towards very stable, long-lasting relationships with other lesbians. There are exceptions, of course. But even among the more bisexual female friends I have had in the past I would be very suspicious of statistics showing a large difference in promiscuity. Of course it is not a representative sample, but at some point I would be more likely to believe my conversations with friends than statisticians.
I will say, however, that I have known more openly bisexual women than men.
February 13, 2010, 12:48 amrjs says:
If, as some people believe, all – or almost all – women in the armed services are lesbians, then straight women should not be allowed to serve as it will destroy unit cohesion.
February 14, 2010, 11:47 amrjs says:
I would be suspicious of both.
February 14, 2010, 12:39 pmQuill says:
You know, stepping back to the question at hand, my personal suspicion regarding DADT being applied to men and women equally in the US military is that if it’s applied to one ‘sector’ and not the other, it could be seen as a legal precedence.
By applying it equally, it can’t be claimed as discrimination against (male) homosexuals only, and put in the potentially justifiable (although completely unsupported) ‘damaging to unit cohesion’ defence.
Just my 2c worth.
February 15, 2010, 10:59 amDrew says:
“Or is there something else I’m missing here?”
You are an incredible comedian. Since you know that the answer is “bigotry.”
February 15, 2010, 11:57 pmMickeyrat says:
Bisexuality is probably the only “deviant” sexual behavior that is more prevalent in females than males. Isn’t that interesting?
May 28, 2010, 5:46 pm