Repeal of DADT: Unaffordable Separate Bunk for Each?
[Editor’s Note: This piece was submitted directly to PunditHouse by Kristina Love in lieu of placing a comment on a Facebook thread started by Christian Hine which suggested new housing costs as an additional reason not to overturn “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”]
Men and women should be kept separate for the sole purpose of protecting women, who are smaller and less physically strong, from rape and other unwanted advances.
Separate quarters don’t stop, or in any way reduce, the amount of consensual sex happening in the military. As I’m sure just about anyone who has been in the service, or knows anyone who has been in the service, can attest, promiscuity in the military is VERY high, even in comparison to civilian society. Does that mean women should not be allowed to serve their country? Of course not.
And if “sexual tension” between the sexes is perceived as a problem, imagine the tension resulting from a total lack of sex! (Is “sexual tension” an oxymoron, owing to the fact that sex is the great tension reliever? After all, the tension in the phrase “sexual tension” usually refers to the tension resulting from wanting to have sex and for some reason not being able to!)
Besides, all-male prisons are renowned for their high incidence of homosexual sex – and not necessarily among homosexuals – resulting from the biological reality that human beings, especially men, have an incredibly strong sex drive that will ultimately be indulged whether or not there are women around. Before the advent of women in the military, such was the case in the military. It’s part of life, and though it may be a part of history that’s swept under the rug, it’s nonetheless widely known. In fact, those days probably were the original impetus for the furor and debate over “gays in the military” – the debate predated the modern situation, and it has evolved over time rather than disappear as circumstances (women now serving) and social mores gradually have changed.
Is celibacy a requirement of military service? I seriously doubt anyone takes this point of view. If heterosexual sex isn’t thought to distract people from their civilian jobs, why keep up the pretense that military personnel can’t do their jobs if they’re distracted by sex – or the pretense that they exemplify some kind of bygone chaste propriety? In other words, let’s not pretend that men and women bunk separately so that they won’t have sex. As I said, I do think they should continue to be kept separate, but only to protect female service members. Not that rape (especially “acquaintance/date” rape) can’t occur despite sex-segregated quarters – but I do see the value in a woman having at least the bare minimum protection of a locked door.
That said, there’s no reason to separate lesbians from the rest of the women, as they are not likely to overpower or aggress against other females. There’s no reason to separate gay men from other men, because the gay men are not likely to overpower or aggress against another man. A heterosexual situation is much more likely to turn violent or nonconsensual. Needless to say, if any misconduct occurs relating to violence or lack of consent among men, women, gays, or straights, that should be disciplined according to whatever procedures are already in place.
So, if we’re not talking about violence, and we’re not talking about misconduct for which there are already disciplinary measures in place, and we’re not talking about a hypocritical and false expectation of Victorian chastity, what exactly are we talking about? Those who opposed the repeal of DADT seem to be vaguely envisioning a potential threat that hovers just at the edge of consciousness…something to do with a decline in morale? Something undermining, that’s for sure! But what, specifically? All that we are left with is the looming prospect of awkward social situations no more dire than any other, and which when looked at directly, seem pretty trivial. Here are a few examples of the much-feared situations, just to highlight the utter silliness: “I can’t be a good soldier because I have a crush on my roommate and he doesn’t return my affections!” Then there’s the corollary, “I can’t be a good soldier because my roommate has a crush on me and I don’t return his affections!” And the humdinger “Being around a gay guy makes me so uncomfortable I forgot how to fly a bomber plane!”
I believe the above falls under the category of “personal drama” a la Melrose Place that wouldn’t ordinarily wander into the official cognizance of a military organization. Soldiers take their orders, they do their job, they respect their chain of command, and they don’t whine to their superiors about their personal, social/sexual lives. If they do, they’re not soldiers for long.
All that was to say, I see no need for any change in the military’s current policy regarding roommate assignments, and so fiscally, the repeal of DADT presents no issues.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=4528
