Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_styles() expected to be a reference, value given in /homepages/16/d202020116/htdocs/worldwide/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 601

Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_scripts() expected to be a reference, value given in /homepages/16/d202020116/htdocs/worldwide/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 601
Worldwide Ace » The Murderous Gays

Worldwide Ace

Because a true Ace is needed everywhere…

Entries Comments


The Murderous Gays

8 April, 2005 (13:37) | Politics

Don’t let the entry title alarm you. I’m not about to go off espousing homophobic and prejudiced views. In fact, just the opposite. The title itself comes from a Robin Wood essay I read for my Hitchcock class that discusses the ways that Hitchcock’s films trivialise gays and keep them on the margins. I guess it was due to a lack of creativity that I stole this title.

Last night, a very amusing post appeared on joking about the way some of the most dominant armies in history supported openly gay soldiers. This is primarily in relation to the Greeks, for whom the term homosexuality did not exist.

SIDE NOTE: My Social Construction of Sexuality class taught me that the term “homosexual” was first coined in the mid 1800s to describe any sexual relations outside of missionary position during wedlock. This includes adultery, oral sex, anal sex, S&M, and anything else you can think of.

With the Greeks, male on male relations were considered closer to classes. Men were expected to learn the sexual arts from other men even if they were not attracted to them. If you think about this, it makes perfect sense. Just as women know their bodies better than men and are therefore better able to teach other women what they need, the same goes for men. Once a man knows how to give a blow job, he can then instruct women on how to do it as well. Of course, I’m not going to test this theory, but perhaps that’s just a reflection of society.

There is the idea of a sexual surrogate as well, which acts in much the same manner. But I digress.

As I am in wholehearted support of gays in the military, I left the comment, “What better way to stay alive? I mean, if they were in my troop, they’d really have a vested interest in protecting my ass.” My assumption was that it both supports my point of view and is humourous (if in poor taste). What I did not expect was the following response from :

On the other hand, when Bob’s pissed because Bill’s cheating on him with Joe and they’re all in the same unit…

I’m not arguing against gays being open and out in the military, mind you, just that all people regardless of gender and/or preference shouldn’t shit where they eat, if ya know what I mean.

I’m torn. On the one hand I agree. I wouldn’t sleep with someone I worked directly with because of the problems that could arise. Certainly, you could get some underhanded sabotage, but I highly doubt if my life would be at risk unless he or she were psychotic.

At the same time, I find this comment incredibly short-sighted and insulting. I know for a fact that I can trust a gay man or woman as much as any American to protect my back on the battlefield. If I were in the military, I know, no matter how bad the personal situation between us, our lives are worth more than some petty jealousy. And I also strongly believe that I wouldn’t hesitate to save them nor them me despite any anger or emotional strain.

This is where the gays in the military argument really breaks down for me. We’re humans. We know the value of life. I think it’s a travesty to think that ‘s hypothetical is any different from two straight military men who both slept with the same woman, one being the husband and the other being the mistress (is there a male version of mistress other than master?). You still end up with these things all the time.

So here I am, staring at my blank response to ‘s comment and I have no idea what to say. I’m thinking this time, I should just keep my mouth shut.

«

  »

  • My reply would discuss conflict of interest and the fact that some small employers will not hire couples due to conflict of interest issues or have them working in the same department– the same reason you would not put a daughter in her mother’s third grade class.

    If you were a pilot, you would have a special interest in guarding people on the ground if one of them was your partner, but I don’t think you would do a crappy job if one was a lover that cheated on you because more than one person’s life is at stake. Your job is also at stake.

    This example can be generalized into any group of related people.

  • My reply would discuss conflict of interest and the fact that some small employers will not hire couples due to conflict of interest issues or have them working in the same department– the same reason you would not put a daughter in her mother’s third grade class.

    If you were a pilot, you would have a special interest in guarding people on the ground if one of them was your partner, but I don’t think you would do a crappy job if one was a lover that cheated on you because more than one person’s life is at stake. Your job is also at stake.

    This example can be generalized into any group of related people.

  • Being myself no source on Greek history, I’d wonder if you’re not taking the different social structure far enough. If Bob, Bill and Joe don’t consider monogamy an essential practice, they probably won’t be too up in arms about sharing each other. If I recall what I’ve heard correctly (no guarantee on that, mind), one of them may very well have a wife back home; but that beyond, think about the history of prostitution.

    Statistically, can we really suppose that most of these soldiers of the past, who knew they might lose their heads tomorrow or next month, were that concerned with little soap-opera issues like who’s sharing whose piece of ass?

    Just a thought. which went on longer than expected.

  • Being myself no source on Greek history, I’d wonder if you’re not taking the different social structure far enough. If Bob, Bill and Joe don’t consider monogamy an essential practice, they probably won’t be too up in arms about sharing each other. If I recall what I’ve heard correctly (no guarantee on that, mind), one of them may very well have a wife back home; but that beyond, think about the history of prostitution.

    Statistically, can we really suppose that most of these soldiers of the past, who knew they might lose their heads tomorrow or next month, were that concerned with little soap-opera issues like who’s sharing whose piece of ass?

    Just a thought. which went on longer than expected.

  • Very well put. I don’t, however, put much stock in the conflict of interest theory. By the time we’re old enough to enter the army and are facing battle, we’ve matured a fair amount. Certainly, there are exceptions to this hypothesis, but they generally seem to be macho straight men who haven’t come to terms with their own sexuality.

    Perhaps I’m just naive or believe myself of stronger moral fiber than most, but I would hate myself if I made a workplace decision based on personal preference rather than merit. In addition, some of the best teams I’ve seen working together were dating, engaged or married. If anything, I think benefits may well outweigh the risks in many cases.

    As to your second point, I’m in complete agreement. Still, if I’m fighting this battle within myself, I’m in no condition to attempt to fight it with others as well.

  • Very well put. I don’t, however, put much stock in the conflict of interest theory. By the time we’re old enough to enter the army and are facing battle, we’ve matured a fair amount. Certainly, there are exceptions to this hypothesis, but they generally seem to be macho straight men who haven’t come to terms with their own sexuality.

    Perhaps I’m just naive or believe myself of stronger moral fiber than most, but I would hate myself if I made a workplace decision based on personal preference rather than merit. In addition, some of the best teams I’ve seen working together were dating, engaged or married. If anything, I think benefits may well outweigh the risks in many cases.

    As to your second point, I’m in complete agreement. Still, if I’m fighting this battle within myself, I’m in no condition to attempt to fight it with others as well.

  • You may well be right. I was a huge greek and roman history/mythology buff in high school, so my knowledge is fairly well removed. From what I remember, the male to male connection most common in greek society was one similar to an internship. A young boy would be sexually apprenticed to an older man to learn about the body and sex.

    As far as the military was concerned, I’m not at all knowledgable about that aspect of male sexual history.

  • You may well be right. I was a huge greek and roman history/mythology buff in high school, so my knowledge is fairly well removed. From what I remember, the male to male connection most common in greek society was one similar to an internship. A young boy would be sexually apprenticed to an older man to learn about the body and sex.

    As far as the military was concerned, I’m not at all knowledgable about that aspect of male sexual history.

  • I’m surprised that you are able to tell yourself who you can and cannot be interested in based on the fact that they work with you… I always thought of relationships as something that happen, having standards is one thing, prerequisites is another…

  • I’m surprised that you are able to tell yourself who you can and cannot be interested in based on the fact that they work with you… I always thought of relationships as something that happen, having standards is one thing, prerequisites is another…

  • Being interested and attracted to someone is very different from pursuing. There a plenty of very attractive girls I’ve worked with, but to date one of them would be a violation of campus policy and could get me fired, expelled and fined greatly. That doesn’t mean I haven’t had a workplace fantasy or swooned over a girl I work with, but I can’t afford to fuck up by… well, fucking.

    As for the ammount of attention I give people, I often feel bad when I’m at work and I’m not able to step away to talk with girls I’m interested in. Bath Kol, for example, works at the radio station with me (though not in my department). I can’t drop my work to sit and chat with her despite wanting to on several occassions. Sometimes I feel like an ass putting my work first, but it seems the right thing to do.

  • Being interested and attracted to someone is very different from pursuing. There a plenty of very attractive girls I’ve worked with, but to date one of them would be a violation of campus policy and could get me fired, expelled and fined greatly. That doesn’t mean I haven’t had a workplace fantasy or swooned over a girl I work with, but I can’t afford to fuck up by… well, fucking.

    As for the ammount of attention I give people, I often feel bad when I’m at work and I’m not able to step away to talk with girls I’m interested in. Bath Kol, for example, works at the radio station with me (though not in my department). I can’t drop my work to sit and chat with her despite wanting to on several occassions. Sometimes I feel like an ass putting my work first, but it seems the right thing to do.

  • Not that I didn’t understand where you were coming from… I’ve just always lived off of musician’s mentality. Being as carefree hasn’t made me the prime example of wealth, but the richness I’ve found in others by no limits, is worth its weight in my heart in gold ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Not that I didn’t understand where you were coming from… I’ve just always lived off of musician’s mentality. Being as carefree hasn’t made me the prime example of wealth, but the richness I’ve found in others by no limits, is worth its weight in my heart in gold ๐Ÿ™‚

  • I guess it’s easier for me since I generally lack the confidence in person that I have online. Plus, I’m just not an aggressive person and prefer to sit back, watch, and wait.

  • I guess it’s easier for me since I generally lack the confidence in person that I have online. Plus, I’m just not an aggressive person and prefer to sit back, watch, and wait.

  • You know I find that to be incredibly more common than most would think… their online personas being a lot more outgoing then what they boot in real life, that is.

  • You know I find that to be incredibly more common than most would think… their online personas being a lot more outgoing then what they boot in real life, that is.

  • Mmm. I’ve heard about the, er, internship angle (I’m sorry, the joke there must be acknowledged), but I don’t know about that kind of relationship being “the most common.” I mean, in the polis, quite certainly, but the philosophers and historians might not have known (cared) much about military life, and they’re the only ones who left records. (as far as I know…)

  • Mmm. I’ve heard about the, er, internship angle (I’m sorry, the joke there must be acknowledged), but I don’t know about that kind of relationship being “the most common.” I mean, in the polis, quite certainly, but the philosophers and historians might not have known (cared) much about military life, and they’re the only ones who left records. (as far as I know…)

  • Shit, I made a funny? Where?

    History is always subjective, especially when you’re discussing an era in which the literacy rate was so low.

  • Shit, I made a funny? Where?

    History is always subjective, especially when you’re discussing an era in which the literacy rate was so low.

  • I agree that people portray themselves differently online than offline, but I’m not sure it’s a matter of outroversion versus intorversion for me. In most ways, I try to be the same person online as offline, however, online I end up more eloquent (because I have more time to think about responses and edit) and less self-censored. In high school, I was known for wise-crack remarks in incredibly poor taste, so I make an effort to censor myself and think before I speak, otherwise my mouth is hardwired to my brain.

  • I agree that people portray themselves differently online than offline, but I’m not sure it’s a matter of outroversion versus intorversion for me. In most ways, I try to be the same person online as offline, however, online I end up more eloquent (because I have more time to think about responses and edit) and less self-censored. In high school, I was known for wise-crack remarks in incredibly poor taste, so I make an effort to censor myself and think before I speak, otherwise my mouth is hardwired to my brain.

  • soc. of human sexuality? who are you taking it with?

  • soc. of human sexuality? who are you taking it with?

  • I had it with Matt and Glenda in Fall of 2000.

  • I had it with Matt and Glenda in Fall of 2000.

  • ah. that still remains my favorite class thus far in my college career…

  • ah. that still remains my favorite class thus far in my college career…