in which I say something unpleasant, incendiary and triggery about those opposed to DADT repeal

[rm]

I'm following the hearings a bit and the usual chestnut of "there will be more male-on-male rape if we allow homosexuals in the military" keeps getting dragged out.

1. There are already gay people in the military.
2. If they were going to commit rape, a change in the DADT laws wouldn't stop them.
3. Gay women exist.
4. Why do you think all gay men are rapists?

And then I go "Ooooooooooooooooooh."

Because for me, the only reasonable explanation I can find for the "all gay men want to do is rape other men" bullshit isn't the "homophobia comes from latent homosexuality" argument.

Nope, I hear this shit and I think to myself that these straight men arguing this want to rape every woman they see (whether they ever would or not). And knowing their own desires, they assume that their rape impulses are normal, and that all men, including all gay men, must harbour them too.

It completely creeps me out.

Because let's be clear: the desire to rape, regardless of gender or orientation, is not a default state, and most men aren't rapists and don't desire to be rapists.

But I am completely creeped the fuck out by our politicians that keep arguing the damn gay rape angle.

Comments

[verasteine.livejournal.com]

I agree with most commenters here that it's some variation of "anything I desire is therefore an object of desire, and no longer a subject" and "if we allow people who could desire me, I become an object to them". It's an argument that eliminates the requirement of consent for sexual partners and reveals, as you rightly pointed out, a shitload about the inner workings of the minds of individuals who spout this crap.

In connection with the whole objectification angle, and since most of these people are male, I should imagine that the erasure of gay women from their speech says something about how they view women and women's sexual agency as well.

[lawnrrd]

It's always seemed as simple to me as: “You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight," but I guess I should know better than to quote radical extremists when talking to mainstream Republicans.

[raaven.livejournal.com]

I think (and am horrified) that you are absolutely, exactly right in this. Politicians terrify me.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I am so enraged by that excuse. I am a gay man, I do not want to have sex with every man I see. I have no intentions of sexually assaulting ANY man.

For gods' sake, even coming into a straight man runs the high risk of being beaten and killed - and then the court case raising the inevitable gay panic excuse.

I hear it too much and I am mortally offended every time. I am a gay man. I am not a bloody rapist. Every man who has been in my bed has WANTED to be there and I have no interest in sex with someone who does not want to have sex with me - I do not remotely see the attraction of sex with someone who doesn't enjoy it as much as I do


It also misses and stomps over the point that, while the majority of VICTIMS of male-on-male rape are gay, the majority of PERPETRATORS are straight. Male rape is very often a hate crime against us.

[angstzeit.livejournal.com]

It seems to me to go along with the general religious mindset. A fear of human (often male) passions. Is it greatly different from the conservative Muslim idea of covering women?

[baka-kit.livejournal.com]

But male-on-female rape is perfectly okay, I guess? Since the military establishment is so desperate to avoid actually doing anything about it.

[deusabscondidum.livejournal.com]

The reason I used to hear when I was in the Navy was that no one wants to work with someone who is sexually objectifying them all the time. But the people who give this argument are men, and the women I have worked with in pretty much every job (unless the workplace was filled with all straight women) had to deal with being sexually objectified. So the people giving this argument think sexual objectification is bad, but don't seem to understand that it happens all the time anyway.

[kargashina.livejournal.com]

i served with these kinds of guys.. not many, but... anyways, i agree

Belated comment

[alumiere.livejournal.com]

I'm playing catchup, but wanted to say this anyway...

I absolutely agree. And the other side of the straight/cis/het male angle here is that DADT enables and perpetuates rape within the ranks; we've all seen the stories. The women who were raped because they appeared too butch, the women who are forced to have sex with a squad member or they'll be accused of being lesbian and discharged, the women coerced into unwanted relationships with superiors, etc.

I don't think men in the military are necessarily more likely to commit rape, but I do see a culture of masculinity that shields rapists, that refuses to pursue charges or gives the perpetrators a slap on the wrist, that condones and in some cases encourages rape, coercion and sexual assault of the women who serve. And yet again, the politicians and the "Brass" don't want to discuss that side of the coin as being a result of DADT or consider the impact of the rapeculture within the military.