NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12320

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12320 alt.politics.clinton:19132 alt.politics.bush:14943 alt.politics.homosexuality:8469 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10739
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bgsuvax!jnomina
From: [e-mail] (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 08:40:49 GMT
Lines: 92

You, berger@gauss (Mike Berger) wrote:

>[e-mail] (A.P.K.) writes:
>>Then what ARE you addressing, if not such incidents?  I cited one,
>>which was reported to me personally, and you write it off as anecdotal.
>>I understand that, somewhat, in that it becomes second-hand knowledge
>>to you personally.  However, it was reported -- to me, and I and another
>>NCO dealt with it accordingly (and not nearly as harshly as would have
>>been done if we'd reported it even higher up.)  As one of two moderators
>>of the incident, I find it to have been a little more than merely an
>>allegation.
>****
>Surely you aren't claiming that one incident (I didn't read the details
>of it - was somebody killed?) is an indictment of all gays serving in
>the military.  If so, then you'd obviously agree that the Tailhook
>incident merits the expulsion of all heterosexual males from the military.

Once again, for the benefit of anyone picking this thread up at
this time, no, I'm NOT against gays in the military.  I've personally
served with two militaries in NATO where there was no problem with
gays in the military.  Of course, those militaries were both in
sexually liberal countries (as opposed to sexually repressed) where
there was also no extreme problems such as rape and other assorted
sexual violence and teenaged pregnancy anywhere near the level of
those self-same problems found here in the U.S.  My contention has
been and still is that we need to fix the problem of sexual
repression in this society somehow, and all subordinate problems,
to include gays in the military, will fix themselves almost
completely.

Someone else already tried to throw the argument of Tailhook at
me and apparently took great offense at my response of "two
wrongs don't make a right" but I still hold with that defense.
I'm not refering to the problem of "gays in the military" as
the other problem, rather the WHOLE problem of gay-bashing,
and the problem of homosexual advances in general.  In light
of the larger-scale problem, solving sexual repression will
solve BOTH of those problems, as I've seen evidence of while
in other countries.  It doesn't solve isolated instances entirely,
but it greatly reduces all occurences of such events, bringing ALL
events of sexual harassment and violence that still occur down to
the level of "isolated instances."

And no, no one was killed.  One of my direct subordinates
(a private) was given sexual advances in a shower.  I and
another NCO (the offender's sergeant) handled the situation
in a private and fair manner.

>
>And I'll bet the number of heterosexual misdeeds far outnumbers the
>homosexual misdeeds in the armed forces.

Well, I cannot say yes or no to this statement, as general as
it is.  In my eight years of service in one duty station in
Europe, I'd have to say you'd lose the bet, but that's from
personal observation only, at one duty station only.  I've
cited the cases as I've seen them previously, and I won't
go into them again.  I will say that, by percentage basis
there were more homosexual misdeeds.  Considering the number
of dependent females, and the local population, and of course
the female soldiers, and then comparing that number to the
heterosexual crimes that were reported*, as compared to the
number of males on base and the number of homosexual crimes
reported*, turning them both into percentiles, I'd be hard
put to say that there were more heterosexual crimes ... by
percentile.  I will note that I'm not including "adultery"
into these numbers, as these things are of a consentual nature
(the woman and man committing such "crimes" consent to it,
although it IS the reason for such a high divorce rate in the
military), nor am I including spouse abuse, which some will
argue should or shouldn't be included.  This is just comparing
violent, unsolicited sexual advances, especially to include
rape.  I don't even have the hard-copy paperwork on such
cases to support these observations, they are personal
observations.  However, they are the observations I made
while in, at one duty station, when I obviously wasn't even
trying to keep score on such things.  I did previously
cite numerous cases that I'd heard about, however.  The
military doesn't make such records public, so personal
observation is about all you're going to find on the
subject, sorry.

* By reported, I mean having heard of such cases as the
M.P.'s handled and at battalion levels.  Such occurences
as I had heard of (and seen) were true occurrences that I was
witness to or through our local "restricted" blatter reports,
or I didn't include them as personal observations.  As restricted
reports, I'm NOT at liberty to give names, dates, and the
like, making them "personal observations" only.

Jim