Wednesday, December 15

Don't ask, don't tell... Can gays fight?


    Don't ask, don't tell just got repealed in the Senate!

   The whole issue got me thinking about gayness in world military history.

   Most of the 'don't ask, don't tell' argument stems from some right wing existential fear that your ability to pull the trigger gets compromised by what you like to do with other people when you're naked. That's the crux of the issue right there. In the US, conservatives run with the idea that gays in the military weaken it based on two assumptions:

    A) Gays can't fight.

    B) Gays weaken a unit by spreading their gayness amongst otherwise non gay troops (the communicable disease theory of gayness).

   I always find argument B particularly funny.  You'd have to be borderline bent already to think that too much exposure to the gay might tip you over the edge into fully fledged homo. That's not exactly something that's going to happen to the average soldier who loves female tits and ass. Sorry, but seeing penis in 'Sexy Harlots 15' didn't ever make me want to fuck the guy in that movie. The stunt dick was only ever there so I could pretend it was mine as I watched it going into the girl.

    Anyway, both arguments are run of the mill homophobia but they got me thinking about gayness in armies of the past. And when I say gayness, I'm not talking about a platoon of  flaming Elton Johns waving pink AKs. That kind of effeminate gayness is not the kind of gay that wants to be a soldier. To want to be a soldier in any age and seek out combat you've got to be hard as fuck and I'm not talking in your dick. I'm talking in your head. What you do for fun naked has got nothing to do with it.



   Any history of warrior gayness must start with the Greeks I suppose.

   Most especially the Thebans and their 'Sacred Band of Thebes'. They were an elite force of 300 warriors who just happened to like boning each other. These guys were as queer as anything you'd see in a San Franciscan assless leather pants bar today and yet were total badass fighters. They fought in pairs, side by side with their lovers on the idea that if one of them died in battle, the other guy is going to be seriously pissed off and rage more on the enemy. It worked and the sacred band played a crucial role in winning at Leuctra. (Not the most famous Greek city state battle I admit, but their skeletons were found in 1890 and some stone monument to them does exist today). Funnily enough, the sacred band were finally defeated by Alexander, perhaps the greatest gay warrior in history.

   The Spartans too had a culture of militarized homosexuality. You know those badass few that stayed behind to die at Thermopylae? All of them would have set your gaydar meter blaring. But they conveniently left that bit out of the Greek history movies and standard history books, omitting the scene in the second act where the warriors all go back to a tent after a hard days fighting for a sausage party. Fucking Hollywood and their historical details right? The Spartans were so gay that Herodotus mentions a Spartan wedding night, where the new bride has to dress up like a man so as to make the transition to pussy easier for her husband.

   That's pretty fucking gay.

   Good fighters though!

   The Spartan's whole culture was a military industrial complex much like the US today. And they proved that there's nothing about what you do with your dick that limits your ability to kill people.

   The Romans didn't have a problem with gayness either. But they did believe in a type of manliness where pleasure seeking began to be seen as weakness. That's where the whole idea of gayness being bad in armies probably originates. The idea that sexual pleasure and killing should be kept separate. They are, after all, two diametrically opposed poles on a single magnet. The idea that they repel seems reasonable. But it's hard to reconcile with ancient historical fact.  Caesar himself may have banged his adopted son Octavian who was later to become Rome's first emperor, Augustus. Historians will argue but the point is, two of the greatest military leaders of the ancient world, Alexander and Caesar, were both benders.

   That alone should wipe out the "don't ask, don't tell' argument, right?

   Conservatives will most likely argue that 'the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there', that ancient history has no bearing on today. So I'll be forced to come up with more recent examples of warrior gayness to prove my point. Okay, no problem. There's plenty of gay to go around.

   Let's break out the Revolutionary War.

   One of my favourite people from that period was Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben who was totally queer. And  also a damn fine military leader and tactician. Without him, Washington's army would have been a useless band of peasants taking pot shots at the British from barn roofs. He was a Prussian, probably my favourite militarized society in post Renaissance Europe. Those guys were the solid, spit and polish, shine your musket, help me up after the cannon ball blew my leg off badass military of the 18th century. Any country that can produce a Clauswitz is serious business. But Von Steuben got kicked out of the Prussian army because he liked the cock. So he went to America in search of freedom. Don't you miss that, when America and freedom went together in the same sentence without any cognitive dissonance?

   Perhaps my favourite gay military leader is T E Lawrence who led the Arab revolt against the Turks in 1916.  Of course, Lawrence kept his sexual preference on the down low, him being an officer in the post Victorian British Army tasked with holding together a disintegrating empire (any parallel with today's US is purely coincidental) and even the movie they made about Lawrence only passingly alludes to his gayness. And that's just fine by me. Nothing about a man is truly revealed by how he has sex. Especially a soldier. Anyone with the balls enough to risk their life in a combat zone has already gained my respect and what they do with their genitals is surely nobody's business but their own.

    It's just a pity there are no honest to goodness wars for them to fight in anymore.


26 comments:

  1. Great articles, good blend of interesting and comical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fucking awesome. You should write a book!

    ReplyDelete
  3. WT, you are The Daily Show of military history and news. Thank-you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. fav blog to read, thanks

    ReplyDelete
  5. But homosexuality is against human nature. And yes, by human nature I mean the involuntary, intuitive feelings that accompany us from birth and that are separate from the information we acquire through experience.

    So thinking outside the box, or like they say, looking at the big picture, a serious question needs to be asked. Could homosexuals (gays & lesbians for that matter) start a society on their own? Could homosexuals pass on their genetics, and start future generations? This is what should be asked, not wether gays could serve in the army.

    BTW, nowadays, because of human technological advancement, serving the army while being gay carries other consequences you did not state in your article. Its rare when an army nowadays fights man to man, face to face. Continuing with this logic then, it follows that if there is no face to face contact, then soldiers have a huge burden take off their backs. Now soldiers have more "spare" time on their hands, with less violence & death, in comparison to the ancient times of course. Therefore, when you have two guys in the army fucking each other everyday, they are going to be emotionally weaker than all the other soldiers who can't wait to return home and fuck their wives

    ReplyDelete
  6. Which means homosexuality is a human CREATION & choice, and is distinct from human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Everything humans do is included in human nature. If it didn't it wouldn't exist in the human realm. That fact that it does includes it in our nature.

    Also, you make the point that the author already refuted... that gays can't fight because they are emotionally weaker than other hetero soldiers. You hold exactly the conservative view stated in point B) above.

    It's funny how 2 people can read exactly the same thing and walk away from it with two oppoesed viewpoint... the same two viewpoints they had before the started reading.

    That's why the humans are fucked. They can never let new information alter their prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Please explain to me how everything humans do counts as human nature? Are you ignorant? Or maybe stupid?

    Are you inferring that rape, child molestation, war, slavery and other human evils are HUMAN NATURE?

    If you are, then you must correct yourself. I stated in my previous response that human nature is intuitive, passed on through genetics and is automatic in learning.

    War, rape, violence and even homosexuality are all acquired through experience, and the surrounding environment, but are not human nature in essence.

    These concepts - homosexuality, incest, war and rape - physical & mental disorders, are all exceptions to the system we live in.

    Most, or the majority of humans, are not homosexual, are not physically ill, are not mentally ill, do no engage in incest, and are not violent. Therefore, human nature encompasses the behaviour of most humans, and anything deviating from this is considered an exception, like homosexuality.

    The author never stated the point that gays cannot fight because they are emotionally weaker than heterosexual soldiers. The author states that the U.S army fears that homosexuality can be contagious, that is, could possibly affect other serving heterosexual soldiers.

    Please reply with facts next time, or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Are you inferring that rape, child molestation, war, slavery and other human evils are HUMAN NATURE? "

      Actually YES, they are all a part of human nature just like greed, sloth, jealousy. You seem to think that only wonderful things constitute human nature. Isn't that laughable :D

      Rape, for example, has perhaps always existed in human society, if not in animal society as well. It needs to be discouraged and penalised because it is violence against consent. Homosexuality, as practiced by consenting adults, does no one any harm at all and in fact brings people closer together in loving relationships. Hence, there is no crime attached to being gay, as opposed to rape.

      Hope that cleared up a few half-baked, knee-jerk prejudices.

      Delete
  9. Heterosexuality = Human Nature

    Homosexuality = Human Choice

    ReplyDelete
  10. Are you saying that everything humans do counts as Human Nature? Are you ignorant, or maybe stupid?

    So you are inferring that rape, violence, child molestation and war are all Human Nature?

    If so, you must correct yourself. I stated in a previous comment that Human nature is involuntary, and is learned automatically. That is, it is intuitive in nature.

    A deeper understanding of human nature lies here: What the majority does.

    The majority of the human race do not steal, rape, violate others etc.
    The majority of humans arnt physically ill, or mentally ill.
    The majority of humans are heterosexual.

    All these concepts - homosexuality, rape, violence, war, incest - - serve as exceptions to the system we live in.

    They are human choices, and are not Human nature in essence. Remember , for something to be human nature, it has to be shared by the majority of humans, or most of them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We have to make a clear distinction between:

    HUMAN NATURE

    &

    HUMAN BEHAVIOUR

    ReplyDelete
  12. So you are saying that only the majority at any given time is what human nature is. The minority, whether they rape, steal or engage in loving relations with same sex partners (funny how you equate those acts).

    You know, Copernicus, Gallileo and Brahe were all outside of the "human nature" you describe when they discovered the earth was round, not the center of the universe and orbited the sun.

    Human behavior IS human nature. What we do is what we are. You think there is some choice beyond choice, a code written in some religous book that makes you right. Remember, your Bibles and Korans were written thousands of years ago when nobody could read or write and wiped their asses with their hands because there was no toilet paper.

    You want to follow the stories of people like these in the age of the internet? Be my guest but know that you are ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My friend, I do not say anything out of my own opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with me, it does not change the truth.

    Human nature in definition has to do with what most people do. That is why it is called human nature.

    You need to adjust your personal dictionary a little and try to understand what human nature is. All of us, whether you or me, gallileo or brahe share things in common. These things are called human nature.

    E.g - Curiousity about creation, violence, (to correct myself), desire to pass on genetics, abstract thought, reasoning etc. and the list goes on.
    All of these things describe what MOST humans share!

    If you are homosexual, does not mean that you are not human anymore. It means that you simply deviated from the human norm, or what most people do. Same goes for stealing, raping, incest(family relations) etc.

    Now, please explain to me what Gallileo's sexual orientation has to do with his astronomical innovations & the invention of the telescope. Nothing!
    Just because he might have moved away from human nature, doesn't mean he can't use his intellect.
    For god's sake, Da Vinci was homosexual, and was one of the greatest inventors of all time.

    I am not saying that if you deviate from human nature, you are less of a human or deserve the worst.

    I am just trying to explain to you that homosexuality is a choice, and cannot be considered human nature, like how we consider logic, reasoning & abstract thought to be exclusively humanistic.

    Putting in another way, if a large proportion of Humans are homosexual, or in a few generations, if more and more humans start becoming homosexual, then we are able to define this as human nature.

    But this will never happen, not because it is against human nature, but because humans need heterosexual relationships to survive.

    So to confirm, again, (rape, child molesting, incest, homosexuality, stealing(to an extent) are all NOT HUMAN NATURE.

    I do not know why you wrote "remember your bibles and korans were written thousands of years ago etc", nor do I understand what this has to do with homosexuality.

    Although these religions condemn homosexuality, both in the bible and the koran, they do not do so because they despise these people. They do so because it is completely reasonable to understand that humans have to be heterosexual in order for humanity to move on.

    This is the essential problem with homosexuality, and this is why it is not human nature: Homosexuals, regardless of how they enjoy themselves in bed, cannot pass on their genetics. If they cannot, then they CANNOT advance humanity.
    If half of the human population was homosexual, we would be living in the dark ages right now. It is because most humans are heterosexual that Humanity has been able to reach where it is right now.

    So please do not call me ignorant until you have solid, scientific knowledge to back your statements up.

    Although I am not into religion, how come all people who do not believe in religion also support homosexual beliefs.

    Until homosexuals can reproduce and pass on their genetics, and until modern Psychiatry can prove that Homosexuality is not a choice, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED HUMAN NATURE.

    ReplyDelete
  14. YA!!!!!!!! DAMN FAGS GAYIN UP OUR MILITARY!!!!!!!!!!!! WE GOTTA STOP THIS

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anti gay fruitless argument...

    Engage!

    ReplyDelete
  16. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality then it is more likely to be passed on when Homosexuality is ileagal or stigmatised as that makes homos stay in the closet and marry and have children. So ironically homophobia could increase the amount of gayness in future generations.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To me the issue is not where you put your dick. It doesn't matter with whom you have sex, if you are active duty, you'll be balls deep in trouble if you get caught sexing it up. This is about being allowed to serve your country no matter what your personal life is. This is an equal rights issue. DADT was the same as 'separate but equal' for Blacks. Total bullshit discrimination.
    Go forth and serve, my friends.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Awesome writing. You are a wonderful historian and storyteller.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I personally detest fags. I served with a few in the Army, but as long as they kept it to themselves it wasn't much of a problem. I do think that allowing their open service will accelerate the decline of the U.S. military, but that's happening anyway for a variety of reasons.

    Allowing females into the ranks was far more detrimental. It's EEO time and it makes everybody feel good about themselves. That's fine in peacetime, and in spite of the skirmishes going on in the Middle East right now, we've been in peacetime for decades. But when the SHTF and there is full-scale combat, when the U.S. military faces a credible organized force, all of this PC shit is going to go out of the window.

    ReplyDelete
  20. i hate to break it to you bub, but everyone, and i mean absolutely everyone, who claims that sexuality is a choice (particularly for men) is, by definition, bisexual. if you can get it up when confronted with another man's asshole, you are not straight. there's nothing wrong with it, but you are self identifying wrong. oh, and if you think homosexuality is a choice, and you need viagra to get it up with your wife, then you'd probably better sit down, 'cause i got some more bad news for you...

    and evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality in males arose as a way of having a large enough hunting population without excessive competition for mates, as homosexual males could guard the females and infants without the risk of usurping the breeding partners of the straight males, whilst lesbianism probably developed as a way of strengthening the female group as an aid to collective child rearing and a means of not getting bored, which is probably why bisexuality is seen to be far more prevalent in females, though cases such as your own may provide another insight into this.

    and to the homophobe who thinks women can't fight, there's a good chance you should do a bit of soul searching too...

    great article.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's sad that WT has written some good shit about wars or possible wars going down in the world but this thread has been hijacked by those that think other people's sexuality matters.

    WTF?

    China is rising and has vast manufacturing ability and a 3.5 million man army, Russia is flush with oil and gas and natural resources. Meanwhile, the Americans in their failing economy are beating themselves up over what men do with their dicks.

    Talk about a declining empire! Talk about mis direction. The US cares about homos while getting ass raped by their leaders economically and literally.

    Go figure that shit.

    ReplyDelete
  22. That most animals also engage in homosexual behavior is enough for me.

    I really don't think this deserves an argument but some 15 year old kid struggling with why he can't be "normal" according to what some commenters are saying... this kid isn't struggling with his decision to join the rough-and-tumble joys of homosexuality. He is facing his existence.

    And I don't see why he (or she, if talking of women) can't kill as well as anyone. I've know some tough ass gays and women.

    Detest all you like, but that makes you no less of a despicable person than a racist.

    Great article. I've been reading your stuff all day.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, great article (haven't read a bad one yet!) And for the guy who says sexual orientation is a choice... ha ha... you know how people can change their minds? So if YOU really did *CHOOSE* to be hetero... it is possible that you MIGHT CHANGE YOUR MIND! (I'm just saying) As for hijacking WT's blog for a homo/DADT forum, I believe this to be a good thing... to exchange ideas, and maybe form new ones...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Who cares if its a choice or not? I only care about 1 thing, as a soldier can you complete your mission? if being gay prevents you from completing the mission then no, you can't be gay and be a soldier. Since it clearly doesn't (gays currently serve in the military, just not openly) and Wartard provided several historical examples of exemplary soldiers who were gay. Then clearly you can be both gay and an excellent soldier. Therefore preventing gays from serving is unfair discrimination.

    This whole argument is just as retarded as saying that heterosexual men can't dance, sing, paint or be fashion designers. Since those are stereotypically "gay" activities, heterosexual men should be bad at them? right? oh wait, sexuality has no bearing there either.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So good topic really i like any post talking about Ancient Greece but i want to say thing to u Ancient Greece not that only ... you can see in Ancient Greece Ancient Greece for Kids and more , you shall search in Google and Wikipedia about that .... thanks a gain ,,,

    ReplyDelete