From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Irrational Fears (was re: gays in the military...)
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:48:26


For your evening reading pleasure, I present the following...

From jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu Tue Dec 15 16:43:54 1992
Return-Path: <jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu>
Date:  Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:40:09 -0500
From: A.P.K.<jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu>
To: young@ssdd475a.erim.org
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:

young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young):
> 
> I see no difference between an irrational fear of skin color and
> irrational fear of getting fucked in the ass.
> 

Peter,

     If I may, I'd like point you to a posting I recently made
which no one has responded to, and probably no one read.
It's on this thread, "Re: Gays in the..."  I'd really like
for you to take the time and look it up, if it's still at your
site, and really read it.  Perhaps people think I was just
bullshitting them or something, but I was quite serious about
that posting.  I used to be in the army; I was a tank commander
before I regretfully had to leave due to a disability I
incurred while in.  I'd still be in and living a quite contented
life, if it weren't for that disability which has cost me my
dignity, marriage, and most of my finances.  The point here is
that I was telling the truth to the tee in that posting, and
I think you may find it quite enlightening, after what you've
just recently posted above.  If you can't find that posting,
e-mail me and I'll be glad to send it to you.

Jim

P.S. My disability had NOTHING to do with this subject line.
Just thought I might want to clarify that, after reviewing
what I've written...




From jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu Tue Dec 15 16:44:12 1992
Return-Path: <jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu>
Date:  Tue, 15 Dec 92 14:50:47 -0500
From: A.P.K.<jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu>
To: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu, young@erim.org
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:

 
You, young@erim.org (Peter Young) wrote:
 
>I saw the posting and felt that it was largely irrelevant to the
>issue.  Whether gays are legally permitted in the military has nothing
>to do with sexual assault.  It certainly gives no license for such to
>gays.  That this has happened is sad.  It needs to be punished.  It is
>not a reason for excluding gays.
 
I'm sorry you felt that it was "irrelevent" to the issue, especially
since, on the narrow grounds of the issue being discussed, it is
exactly the issue.  The issue isn't a little sexual harassment, nor
is it shower rooms, it is the living environment and conditions
under which the soldiers are forced to coexist with one another
overall.  It is the stress and degradation and lack of privacy and
and loneliness all roled into one.  It is quite a psychological thing.
It's like that in every military I was fortunate enough to be able
to serve with (in NATO).  In fact, it is the psychological aspect
of loneliness and desair that usually brings about such attacks
in the barracks in the first place, to the best of my Non-
Commissioned Officer's understanding.
 
>If we are to use your argument, then we should refuse to permit
>heterosexuals in the military because ther are many more incidents of
>heterosexual assault than there are of homosexual assault.
 
Au contrair, friend.  There is considerably LESS heterosexual
assault and abuse in the military than anywhere else in this
country.  Unfortunately, when it DOES happen in the military,
it's totally blown up and screamed at us.  I'm not saying it's
wrong that it's reported, but there are more rapes and other
various sexual assaults by percentile basis in any American city
than there are in the military.  In fact, there were more cases
of homosexual assualts on my base than there were heterosexual
assaults during one of my years there, actual numbers, not by
percentile basis.  If we were to try to acheive a percentile
basis for a comparison such as this, I think we'd find that
homosexual attacks were higher every year I was there.
 
>That such things do happen is no doubt true.  I am just as sure that
>there were some blacks who responded to integration of the military as
>their chance to finally get those white boys at last.  These are not
>reasons to refuse to permit integration.
 
Isn't that a strawman argument, of sorts?  Racial integration
really has NO basis for comparison to sexual integration.
While there may have been a few people out to get the whiteys
when racial integration was enforced, the black military population
is probably the most unbiased of all the various racial populations
in the military today, should we try to determine something such
as THAT by a racial breakdown.  And anyway, it has no comparison
to the psychological damaged caused by a rape in the barracks.
Not only does it usually ruin two good soldiers, the victim and
the protagonist (who IS personally at 'fault', but there are a
LOT of factors which bring such an occurence out), but it also
ruins a whole LOT of other people in the unit for quite some
time.  Especially the lowest privates who are having a hard enough
time just trying to figure out what's going on around them.  To
suddenly be forced to wonder about such issues as this can
be devastating to the newer privates in a unit.
 
It is the psychological environment of the military, which
cannot be changed if we're to remain a viable military, which
helps to bring out such attacks, although it is obviously a
societal problem that the problem of sex offense exists at all.
If we really WANT to fix the problem of gays not being allowed
in the military (and fix all other such problems, while we're
at it), then we need to look at the larger picture and fix
that problem, in whatever way that it may be fixed.
 
>Note that my admission that these sorry incidents do occur in no way
>refutes the irrationality of the fears.  What would you think of one
>who refuses to play golf because people have been struck by lightning
>while playing golf?  Or those who refuse to fly on an airplane because
>of airplane crashes?  Yes the incidents happen, but the fears are
>irrational because the incidence is so low.
 
And that's the whole of the argument.  These incidents AREN'T
low, as you contend.  They are very high, abnormally high,
rediculously high even for this sexually repressed society.
 
>I feel that you need something more than anecdotal evidence when
>discussing something like this issue.
 
As I'd said in my posting, I don't have the "statistics" because
the military tends NOT to keep statistics on such things, or
if they do, they DON'T release such things.  And while it may
be fair for you to deem it "anecdotal evidence," which is why
I expected many to write off what I had to say in the first place,
my personal first line of evidence is from personal experience.
If I can see something, then it's a little more believable than
just reading about it.  I never deliberately lie, and I make a
serious effort never to accidentally lie, either.  I can certainly
understand a little skepticism about what I've written, but rest
assured, it is unfortunately true.
 
I wish I'd followed this up in a posting, rather than via
e-mail, because I think that many people probably feel as
you do about my argument.  Well, I didn't, and to preserve
your right to privacy, I'll not just postnews this.  However,
should you wish to, as long as you post this in its entirety
(you'll note that I didn't cut out a single word that you
posted), you may feel free to do so.  Actually, I really would
be interested to hear what others have to say about my original
posting, as well as this.  I'm glad to hear that you at least
did read the original posting, and you've obviously given it a
little thought at least.
 
Jim


--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh