|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Gay/Lesbian Issues in the Military Looking for sex in combat|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Basic Training |
I'm in Iraq right now and another guy asked me about giving me a b/j. I was quite suprised by that. Sound off. Let me know what you think.
|
||
|
|
Member |
Well, of course, sexual misconduct is sexual misconduct. I assumed you declined the offer. But what if the other person had been a female? What would your reaction have been?
I'm also curious what your own reaction to this offer and what you did about the situation? Since you posted in the Gays in the Military section, I assume you're willing to discuss the issue. Is this guy's sexual advance to you confirmation that gays shouldn't be in the military? Do you think he represents the attitude and behavior of all gay troops, or just himself? Has anyone else in your unit had a similar offer? Do people suspect this guy is gay? What is their reaction to that? Is this guy otherwise considered a good troop? Should this guy get kicked out? Lots of issues worthy of discussion. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Yes it is what it is. Yes I did decline the offer. Even if it were a female (which it has happened since I've been here), the offer still would have been and was declined. I wasn't suprised that a guy offered. What got me was the fact that we are in Iraq and the question was proposed.
I didn't think much of it because I'm used to it. I hang out with some of everyone...straight, gay, bi, tri, black, white, latino, asian, jew, gentile, etc. I'm used to getting hit on by guys. I welcome any comments that anyone have about this. There is no confirmation to be made on if gays should be allowed to serve in the military. My belief on that; however, is that regardless of one's sexual orientation is, they should not be denied the "American right" that straight men and women have to serve their country. Those same advances are done on both sides of the fence whether gay or straight, male or female. I know of many gays and lesbians who are proudly serving their country. They go through the same b/s that straights are going through. Honestly, they present themselves in a better manner, work harder, longer, and endure the same hardships that their straight counterparts. Where ever they go, no one looks at the fact that they are gay because they don't see it. What they see is a hard working Marine, Sailor, Airman, or Soldier. Some of my friends are out here in Iraq and they are excelling more than straight people. I'm not saying that all of them are like that, but a good majority of them are. I don't know if anyone else has encountered anything like this or not, no. I don't know anything about this guy. He's not with my unit. I don't think he should get kicked out. If that's the case, straight people who make advances like that should get kicked out too. |
|||
|
|
Member |
RedPatch_01, it sounds like your experiences in Iraq match the findings of the recent Zogby International poll of Iraq/Afghanistan troops, wherein 68% of them said they knew for certain or suspected there were gays in their own unit (23% knew for sure and 45% suspected), and most of them thought or knew there were more than one). And 73% of the troops said they didn't mind working around gays and lesbians.
The whole basis of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was that the mere knowledge of ANY gay or lesbian person in a unit would degrade morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness. Apparently that notion was and is false, given the frequency with which people say they personally know gay peers and given that our military is doing just fine in terms of combat readiness. What are your thoughts in this regard? |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
I haven't seen that poll but that's actually what I have experienced since my being in 11+ yrs. I have some in my unit who simply do not like gay males particularly. They suspect that I am but obviously there has been no confirmation.
DADT was something that tried to give some type of leeway to LGBQ persons who were either already in or those who wanted to join along with what you said. This is my second deployment to Iraq. During my first tour, I was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon for leading the attack on two separate occasions against enemy forces. We came out of the firefights with no casualties or wounded. I've excelled in many areas of my career. Yes, that notion was and still is false. Combat readiness is dependent on not only morale, but training. Training is the ultimate key to a unit's success or failure in combat. Today's military is far more complex, agile, and less resistant to change than it was just 15-20 years ago. A change in people comes with a change in times. The military is society. That is where we get our members from. There aren't many individuals who are bred nowadays to hate gays and lesbians just as they are fewer being bred to hate minorities. In this gun club, you have to get rid of the "I" and take on the "we" concept. We have come a long way with regards to this topic. We still have a long way to go though. I know gays and lesbians from all branches of service, officer/enlisted, all races, male/female, short/tall, and from gorgeous to ugly who are serving in today's military. They are making history. As you can probably tell, this is a soft spot for me because I am who I am. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Redpatch_01, I sent you a private e-mail to your gay.com address. Please read ASAP.
|
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Thanks for the info dupontgaf. Way to hit me up on my email addy.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Redpatch_01, here's a link to the Zogby Poll data:
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/1/ZogbyReport.pdf Note in particular the responses to questions 14, 15, 16 and 17, dealing with how many people know gays in their own units. It's a whole lot of people -- obviously there is an awful lot of "telling" going on, and nobody seems to care -- it certainly isn't affecting combat readiness, and you know first-hand. And, with all these troops knowing about gays in their own unit, it's a virtual certainty that many commands know, too. Obviously, if these commands thought these troops were degrading their mission, they would quickly get rid of them. Also look at question 24 dealing with people's level of comfort in the presence of gays and lesbians -- 73% say the are either very comfortable or somewhat comfortable, while only 19% say they are somewhat uncomfortable or very uncomfortable. So, since many gays are already serving openly, even with the knowledge of some of the commands, and our military continues to function just fine, what is the purpose of DADT? All it does is put people at risk of being kicked out and make them live in fear that at any time the wrong person will object to their presence. It also makes people lie about who they are and violate their service's honor code. |
|||
|
Member |
I spent 24 years in the miltary and only knew of one gay member. That is one in 24 years and 6 or 7 different assignments.
You mention question #16. Certain that someone is gay in unit. 23% So that means 77% didn't know. Do I understand this correctly? |
|||
|
|
Member |
How about questions in #30.
Sexual orientation has "nothing" to do with job performance. 36% So does that mean that 74% believe it does Wrong to discrimante based on sexual orientation. 30% So I guess 70% believe it is ok War time military needs all qualified people. 25% So then 75% do not believe that. I'm I understanding that correctly? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Most likely, gays chose not to let you know who they were. Much of it may depend on the locations where you served, as an example; I served my first 10 years based on the West Coast, and there were many gays on every ship. My second 10 years was spent on the East Coast, and I met very few gays on the ships where I served. I can't account for the disparity, but did notice a significant increase of dislike for homosexuals on the East Coast, which prompts me to believe that homosexuals were more closeted there. Other factors could be that rising in rank takes you further away from the troops and less familiar with their personal lives. The younger folks hung out with one another, and us older gents socialized with our age group and rank, which was a much smaller group. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Bullhunter, re the Zogby survey, 23% of the respondents (and 27% of enlisted respondents) said they knew for certain that at least one member of their own unit was gay. 77% were either unsure or did not know for certain that at least one member of their unit was gay. A separate question reveals that of those who knew for certain, the majority knew there were more than one in their own unit.
The importance of this question cannot be overstated, if one references the reasons that DADT was passed. It was assumed that ANY known gay would be a disruption to unit morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness. Obviously that is not the case when a quarter of the Iraq/A-stan forces know for certain that there is a gay in their own unit. Another 45% of the troops suspected there were gays in their own unit, and again, most suspected there were more than one. Obviously, if one is uncomfortable around gays and lesbians to the point that it is going to affect your job performance, then when nearly half of the troops suspect there are gays in their own unit, the assumptions underlying DADT are false. Add them up and you get 68% of the troops saying their know for certain or suspect there are gays in their own unit. Yet combat readiness is not degraded. And finally you have the question where 73% of the troops said they were either very comfortable or comfortable working around gays and lesbians. Again, if the assumption that known gays degrading combat readiness were true, you wouldn't be getting a 73% response saying it's not true. |
|||
|
|
Member |
My opinion on "looking for sex in combat", is that each person seeks their own type(straights with straights & gays with gays) for the most part. There will be those that will elicit sex where it is not desired or wanted (this includes both gay and straight). In a perfect world you would tell the person "NO", and that should be the end of it. If it happens again, then ya turn them in for Sexual Harassment. Under the DADT policy, the offended individual is justified if he/she reports the offense, and an investigation would be implemented to ascertain weather the person soliciting homosexual sex is in fact a homosexual, then is discharged.
Under the current policy, if this person asked me for sex, I would tell the offending individual to back off and not do it again while explaining the seriousness of the offense. If he/she does it again, then report the individual. I prefer to give a person a chance to clean up their act, especially youngsters who quite often don't engage their brain when making decisions. This policy of booting people out for one mid-grade offense, is foreign to me. We had drug users that would be busted down in rank but never discharged, sexual harassment was the same way. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Posted By jim:
Where do you find this is a so called mid-grade offense? Laying hands on another person is in most all case an assault.
Your above view is close to my one and only encounter with an agressive homosexual. The encounter I have detailed below. As he did not take no for an answer I had to use force against him for self defense. If you choose to read it you will find more to the story. I arrived at a new duty station in Europe after traveling all-night and half the day. Got checked into my new USAF Squadron, got my barracks room assigned and dropped of my things, did some in-processing, then hit the chow hall. On my return to my assigned barracks room other airman in the hall started laughing as they looked my way. They being young airman and me a Staff Sgt. I left my key in the door and walk up to them and asked them what was so dam funny. They would not give me a straight answer but one airman said I’d “likely find out tonight.” Being tired I decided I didn’t need this crap and went into my room. I unpacked and then the other guy who was assigned to this two-man room came in. We introduced ourselves, talked some, and I showed him photo’s of my wife and son, he was single and had no pictures. About 0100Hrs (1:00AM) I was awaken by a feeling on my leg. The airman was rubbing my leg, I told him to get back to his bed and leave me alone. His reply was “I won’t hurt you”. I responded in a firm voice that he needed to get on his side of the room and leave me alone, that I would not warn him a 3rd time. He said again, “I won’t hurt you”. It’s about then that my fist hit him between the eyes and he rolled backwards as he was on his knees next to my bed when I hit him. I jumped up out of my bed and a thought crossed my mind briefly to give him a few more punches, but I calmed down quickly. To stress my point I told him to stay on his side of the room until I got my room changed or I’d throw him out the window (we were on the 3rd floor). [ drastic statement but got my point across ] I then left the room and went down to see the Charge Of Quarters (CQ). Not wanting to cause him trouble I told the CQ to login the time, and that I was down at the CQ’s office. This all happened in 1978 and I think I then got a soda before going back to the room. I did not sleep much the rest of the night and the next morning I went to the 1st Sgt and said I needed another room. The 1st Sgt said that 6 other new people had requested new rooms and refused to stay with that room-mate the past month. The 1st Sgt refused me a new room and said I was a NCO and unless there was a serious problem or conflict in the room I was there to stay. I told the 1st Sgt, that in that case I wanted to talk to the commander. The 1st Sgt replied that I would not see the commander until I told him what was going on. He said he knew the problem with that airman, because nobody will stay in that room, and he was not going to play musical rooms anymore with troops. I told the 1st Sgt exactly what had happened that night and that it was about 0100 hrs as I went down to the CQ’s office. It was all typed out in a statement for me to sign. I told the 1st Sgt that all I want is a new room. He said I would be getting assigned to a new room before lunch. Several days later I was called to the Judge Advocates Office. They had my statement and were starting a Court Martial on the airman for Homosexual Activity and Assault. I laughed, and said “the airman touched me and rubbed my skin, I punched him and knocked him down. How was I assaulted?” The major snapped at me that “this is no joking matter, you were assaulted sexually and punched the airman in self defense.” Several weeks later we were in the court room. The airman pleaded not guilty as he had nothing to loose. They wanted him out. He had no case as they had a history of people failing to stay in that room with him. I felt bad for the airman. The line of witnesses all testified, past roommates and the 1st Sgt, then me. The Military Prosecutor questioned me for a while and referenced my statement. The airman’s defense attorney only had maybe 3 questions for me and none had any help for the airman. I though to myself, “what a kangaroo court, this airman is getting railroaded, yes he did wrong but this is not the answer.” I was the last witness and the Prosecutor said that the government rested its case. I don’t know what came over me ( Likely the same anger that I had that night I was awaken) I spoke out, “I’d like to address the court as a person and not a witness, please.” The Prosecutor objected, of course; the Defense Attorney had no objection as he had nothing to loose. The panel of officers just kept looking at each other and then the military judge. The judge did not seem to know which way he should go with my request. I spoke out again and asked, “ Is the court interested in fairness and justice or just another conviction?” The judge to my surprised then gave his approval for me to speak. I started out by explaining the article in the base newspaper I had read when I first arrived at the base the month prior. Story about a drug user and dealer who had found Christ and started going to Church at the base Chapel and that I had seen him there. The Air Force’s legal authorities at this base had chose to forgive the actions as he voluntarily quit and confessed. I then informed the court that this airman on trial had started attending the Base Chapel during services, as I had seen him there myself. I suggested to the court that his starting to attend the chapel might be the start of a new life for him and as this is his first problem with the UCMJ maybe the same should be offered to him as the drug user/dealer. The judge thanked me and sent the officer panel jury off to decide the case. Later that day I was called in by the 1st Sgt and was informed that the accused airman’s case was dismissed and he was being reassigned to another base in Europe for a fresh start. I could tell the 1st Sgt was not pleased with me and that I better never get in trouble. Did I do the right thing? Was it the best thing? Should I have done it? I don’t know the answers to these things. I somewhat feel because this homosexual individual refused to take "NO" as for "NO" he should have been discharged. All I know is this incident caused the loss of many man hours. Not only by the court and the panel of officers, but by me. I Should have been out working on jet aircraft instead of two days spent in court. Many of my co-workers had to take up my slack. The other witness had co-workers that had to take up thier slack also. |
|||
|
|
Member |
You applied some good, old-fashioned OJT to the mans head, which I've seen successfully used back in the 70's. The person who started this thread was asking what to do about a homosexual who verbally propositions you, your situation included touching while in bed which is more serious than just a verbal come-on. Both situations are inappropriate behavior and inexcusable. In your case, the homosexual was a detriment to the unit and had caused problems with every person that shared a room with him. That's unacceptable in the Military and he should have been discharged, which is probably what happened to him at the next command if he didn't learn from the OJT that you applied to his forehead that night. One never knows, you may have taught him a valuable lesson and he may have never again propositioned anyone else. It bothers me that the guy had done this several times prior and evidently you were the first do something about it, by letting someone get away with being a sexual predator, they assume they can continue to do so without impunity. Keep in mind, not all of us gays are like that. During the early 70's I roomed in a 2 man room and the only problem I had with my room mate was that he liked smoking pot and would leave his pipe on the night-stand that separated our beds. During a room inspection, they found the pipe and couldn't figure out which one of us it belonged too because the night-stand was shared by both of us. During the NIS investigation - my roomy fessed up to owning the pipe and I was let off the hook. After that, NIS used him as a stooge (narc) and 27 drug users in the squadron were busted. I never propositioned my roomy and he never knew I was gay. In fact, we used to hit the club on base and indulge in the fine draft beer they served at NAS Miramar. There will be some homosexuals who will not be proper material for Military service, just as with some heterosexual men & women. They get weeded out eventually. The Bill that is setting in Congress right now,(HR 1246, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act) which proposes to end the DADT policy, will allow homosexuals to serve without fear of discharge, and at the same time, it will put homosexuals on equal standing within Military Law, which will fix the problem you had by using the Sexual Harassment Policy that's already in place to stop unwanted sexual advances, and an appropriate course of action to take in order to get them out of the Military when they won't stop. Link to HR1246: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1246 Respectfully, Jim |
|||
|
|
Member |
Posted by Jim
Yourself and many in this forum like this HR1246. I for one do not! If it passes, it maybe the law of the land, but it will not show that it is the will of the people. This issue should be voted on by the masses (the people) not a few hundred idiots in D.C. Yes, it may pass, but it may not reflect the will of the people. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Actually, the vast majority of the American people are in favor of gays serving openly in the military. Poll after poll after poll, conducted by both liberal and conservative news organizations and independent polling agencies have verified this. So you're wrong about what America feels about gays serving their country honestly. And guess whom Congress represents? You got it -- their constituents. The same people who respond to the polls. |
|||
|
