NationStates Jolt Archive

And about bloody time too (Or will be when the law gets passed)!

Obama will end 'don't ask' policy, aide says

Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 14, 2009
President-elect Barack Obama Michael Gerold (left), American Legion Dist. 8 commander,... John Caldera Commissioner of Veterans Affairs of San Fran...

(01-13) 20:21 PST -- President Obama will end the 15-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has prevented homosexual and bisexual men and women from serving openly within the U.S. military, a spokesman for the president-elect said.

Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team's Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:

"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' "...
Rest here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/MNTG159HHG.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Now what was that about doubting President Obama's commitment to Gay rights?

And about bloody time too (Or will be when the law gets passed)!
Now what was that about doubting President Obama's commitment to Gay rights?

I don't know. Really, I thought that the "don't ask don't tell" was a sensible policy somewhat. Could you explain me why do you think it wasn't?

I don't know. Really, I thought that the "don't ask don't tell" was a sensible policy somewhat. Could you explain me why do you think it wasn't?

Because it punishes people for living their life openly, and it deprives an undermanned military of skilled personnel, in a time of war no less?

Now what was that about doubting President Obama's commitment to Gay rights?

Symbolic gestures ftw. :D

Now what was that about doubting President Obama's commitment to Gay rights?

They'll say. "We don't believe it! He'll forget all about it once he's in the White House. He nominated a gay hater! He's evil!"

Or some silliness like that.

ZOMG obama is teh gigagay.

This is such a bad idea.

Now what was that about doubting President Obama's commitment to Gay rights?

Biden said that both himself and Obama were against gay marriage during the vice-presidential debates. Who cares about this if he's going to withhold their right to marry? When he moves to legalize gay marriage THEN I'll (gladly) stop doubting him but until then I still have no respect for him, no matter what the American public think.

Because it punishes people for living their life openly, and it deprives an undermanned military of skilled personnel, in a time of war no less?

No wait. The eventual end of punishment for open homosexuals in the military will depend on what will be the new policy. Iirc, here in Italy gays were excused from military service as if homosexuality were a disease: this is why I thought a good idea the "don't ask don't tell".

Btw, I think that sexuality (hetero or homo or bi or whatever) should remain a sort of private thing. If I and my fiancee were serving in the same unit, I wouldn't think that it would be appropriated for me to march along holding her hand or to kiss her in front of the platoon.

Btw, I think that sexuality (hetero or homo or bi or whatever) should remain a sort of private thing. If I and my fiancee were serving in the same unit, I wouldn't think that it would be appropriated for me to march along holding her hand or to kiss her in front of the platoon.

I don't think any gays will be doing this, I see it as a largely symbolic gesture saying that there isn't a problem with gays and that your job shouldn't be limited by your sexuality. This will be relevant only in a few cases where they find out someone's gay. They won't be allowed to excuse them for that.

I found this part of the article interesting:
A more recent, if unscientific, readership survey by the Military Times group of newspapers reported that about 58 percent of active-duty respondents opposed repealing the ban, a number that was cited in some media accounts as reflecting broad military opposition to a change.

I don't think any gays will be doing this, I see it as a largely symbolic gesture saying that there isn't a problem with gays and that your job shouldn't be limited by your sexuality. This will be relevant only in a few cases where they find out someone's gay. They won't be allowed to excuse them for that.

Ah, ok.

This is such a bad idea.
Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

Biden said that both himself and Obama were against gay marriage during the vice-presidential debates. Who cares about this if he's going to withhold their right to marry? When he moves to legalize gay marriage THEN I'll (gladly) stop doubting him but until then I still have no respect for him, no matter what the American public think.
Well, one MIGHT think that allowing gays to openly serve in the military might be a GOOD thing. Ya know, kinda like giving kudos to President Truman for desegregating the military .

No wait. The eventual end of punishment for open homosexuals in the military will depend on what will be the new policy. Iirc, here in Italy gays were excused from military service as if homosexuality were a disease: this is why I thought a good idea the "don't ask don't tell".

From the sound of it, homosexuals will be allowed to serve, regardless of their orientation. The problem with Don't ask, don't tell has been that once someone's homosexuality had been found out, for any reason, they were expelled from the military. This sounds like the removal of that requirement.

Well, one MIGHT think that allowing gays to openly serve in the military might be a GOOD thing. Ya know, kinda like giving kudos to President Truman for desegregating the military .


It is a good thing. He's just not going far enough.

And about bloody time too (Or will be when the law gets passed)!


Rest here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/MNTG159HHG.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Now what was that about doubting President Obama's commitment to Gay rights?


He didn't say he was going to allow gay people to serve openly... he just said they were ending Don't Ask Don't Tell.

It might mean total ban, for all you know.

It is a good thing. He's just not going far enough.
One step at a time. Besides, given the current economic situation, this at least has a good chance of getting through Congress without screaming and theatrics in between the screaming and theatrics going on about the latest economic package. :p

He didn't say he was going to allow gay people to serve openly... he just said they were ending Don't Ask Don't Tell.

It might mean total ban, for all you know.
Highly doubtful, given the article.

Highly doubtful, given the article.

"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' "

That's all he said, that's all we know for sure. Unless the reporter who wrote the article had more info then they printed... that's all we really know.

You can't hold a politician to what you assumed they meant... then again today it seems you can't hold them to anything at all.

"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' "

That's all he said, that's all we know for sure. Unless the reporter who wrote the article had more info then they printed... that's all we really know.

You can't hold a politician to what you assumed they meant... then again today it seems you can't hold them to anything at all.

"There's increasing recognition within the armed forces that this is a counter-productive strategy - ya know, we're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialities like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe," he said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/11/2008-04-11_obama_ill_end_dontask_donttell-1.html

And about bloody time too (Or will be when the law gets passed)!


Rest here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/MNTG159HHG.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Now what was that about doubting President Obama's commitment to Gay rights?
i dont think it has to be a law. im pretty sure the president can make the change all on his own.

And about bloody time too (Or will be when the law gets passed)!


Rest here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/MNTG159HHG.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Now what was that about doubting President Obama's commitment to Gay rights?

An end to the stupidest order ever given by a President (Clinton), who by his order ended up dumping out more gay servicemen during his eight years in office than all of the gay servicemen kicked out in the entire history of US military service.

It's a good change. Don't Ask Don't Tell worked out to be nothing more than a license to discriminate because it allowed discharge of a person from the military if it became known in any way that they were gay, without any requirement for there to have been any actual misconduct. Just being gay was treated as if it were misconduct.

However, it will be a better change if it is backed up by a commitment to prosecute military personnel for harrassing fellow personnel, so that if a gay serviceman/woman is harrassed or attacked because of their orientation, they can get justice within the system.

It's a good change. Don't Ask Don't Tell worked out to be nothing more than a license to discriminate because it allowed discharge of a person from the military if it became known in any way that they were gay, without any requirement for there to have been any actual misconduct. Just being gay was treated as if it were misconduct.

Correction to you who have never been in the service.

Before Clinton's order, it was up to the unit commander to decide if the conduct was something that was a problem - most of the time, the commander was not an asshole, and most of the time, the soldier in question stayed in the service.

I served alongside many such people.

Clinton's order (note the word "order") removed all discretion from the commanders, and made it MANDATORY not "allowed" to discharge them.

Having zero background in the military, and not knowing that he was removing all discretion, Clinton made it an ORDER.

You also have to consider that harassment goes both ways. I've seen female soldiers who were harassed by lesbians in the shower - and due to the fact that at the time (prior to don't ask/don't tell) the military viewed it as impossible for a woman to sexually harass a woman, there was no end to the harassment.

Yes, gays should serve. But the rules need some fine tuning to make sure that no one - of any orientation - gets harassed.

Yes ^^^.

The only argument that ever had a shred of reality against gays serving openly was that it would "disrupt unit cohesion". This was, in fact, a possibility.

But "unit cohesion" was disrupted when we ended segregation. And again when we let women serve in combat. We got over it. We'll get over this too, and be the stronger for it.

Good, it's about time for that silliness to end. I've served with a number of soldiers that were homosexual. They didn't go around telling everyone they were (who does that anyway?) but it was an open secret.

The only issue I've ever seen with a homosexual soldiers didn't originate with him, another soldier repeatedly called him a "fag", even doing so in front of non commissioned and commissioned officers. Normally, namecalling isn't really something you'd take action on, but he was seriously harassing the guy about his sexuality, not just simply talking shit like soldiers do. Once it was clear he was being a dick and not just fucking around a complaint was filed against him and he was punished, although I'm not sure exactly what happened to him.

I don't know. Really, I thought that the "don't ask don't tell" was a sensible policy somewhat. Could you explain me why do you think it wasn't?

Because turning down otherwise qualified soldiers because you find out they're gay is a really fucking stupid thing to do, especially in war time. DOUBLY so when those soldiers happen to be ARABIC TRANSLATORS (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html)and we're at war in the middle east

An end to the stupidest order ever given by a President (Clinton), who by his order ended up dumping out more gay servicemen during his eight years in office than all of the gay servicemen kicked out in the entire history of US military service.

Speaking of 'our entire election season', would you like me to post comments you made that Obama had "thrown [gays] under the bus" so that you can pretend you didn't make them?

Speaking of 'our entire election season', would you like me to post comments you made that Obama had "thrown [gays] under the bus" so that you can pretend you didn't make them?

Ah, but he did throw them under the bus.

Do you see Rick Warren?

Do you see him making for a Federal gay marriage act?

He didn't say he was going to allow gay people to serve openly... he just said they were ending Don't Ask Don't Tell.

It might mean total ban, for all you know.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was actually the result of a previous attempt at allowing gays to serve openly in the military. President Clinton attempted to basically force the military to accept homosexuals by way of an Executive Order, and it backfired with a Congressional bill that ended up with this horrible half-compromise. It wasn't supposed to end up like this.

Obama intends on doing what Clinton tried to do, only actually succeeding.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was actually the result of a previous attempt at allowing gays to serve openly in the military. President Clinton attempted to basically force the military to accept homosexuals by way of an Executive Order, and it backfired with a Congressional bill that ended up with this horrible half-compromise. It wasn't supposed to end up like this.

Obama intends on doing what Clinton tried to do, only actually succeeding.

It will succeed if they give it some thought. Clinton fucked up because he didn't understand the effects of giving such a badly worded order.

Ah, but he did throw them under the bus.

Do you see Rick Warren?

Did you see the thread you're currently posting in?

Correction to you who have never been in the service.

Before Clinton's order, it was up to the unit commander to decide if the conduct was something that was a problem

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.

DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.

DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981

Sssh! Stop getting your facts in the way of his claims!

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.

DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981

Oh, that explains why there were so many in service before Clinton...

Are you pretending that you were in the service now?

This is a step in the right direction and I totally support it, but I wonder if violence against gays would increase when officers aren't looking...

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.

DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981

It's Jimmy Carter's fault. *Nods*

You know what amuses me? This all breaks down to people in the military not being "comfortable" around homosexuals.

Well I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable. I'm sure all the dust and sleeping on the floor and MREs in Iraq make you uncomfortable. You want a four star hotel, whiny baby?

THIS IS THE MILITARY GET OVER IT! [/drill sergeant]

Oh, that explains why there were so many in service before Clinton...

Are you pretending that you were in the service now?

When you're coming up with your replies, do you actually have a multiple choice pool of potential responses, and you just automatically choose the most laughably absurd, irrational and obnoxious responses? Or is it more of a true/false thing, where you can either say something retarded, or leave the thread and hope no one notices?

Are you pretending that you were in the service now?

No, unlike you, I don't lie about my qualifications.

It's a good change. Don't Ask Don't Tell worked out to be nothing more than a license to discriminate because it allowed discharge of a person from the military if it became known in any way that they were gay, without any requirement for there to have been any actual misconduct. Just being gay was treated as if it were misconduct.

However, it will be a better change if it is backed up by a commitment to prosecute military personnel for harrassing fellow personnel, so that if a gay serviceman/woman is harrassed or attacked because of their orientation, they can get justice within the system.

You mean they can't get justice through the system for being harassed over their orientation as it stands now? Even theoretically?

I'm going to try to find jello pudding pops at the store to give me comfort for the sudden depression I feel. But they won't be as good as I remember because they are being made by a different company now.

You know what amuses me? This all breaks down to people in the military not being "comfortable" around homosexuals.

That's not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think. Just about everyone I've served with (three different units over about 6 years) has been cool with the idea. Also note that I've always been in combat units.

You mean they can't get justice through the system for being harassed over their orientation as it stands now? Even theoretically?

I take it you didn't read my earlier post about just such a thing?

No, unlike you, I don't lie about my qualifications.

Unlike you, I was in the service.

Regulations are always subject to the discretion of the commander's judgment.

Of course, if you were in the service, you would have known this.

It's the subtle difference that Clinton did not know, thus resulting in his dumping of gays from the military at an unprecedented rate.

You know what amuses me? This all breaks down to people in the military not being "comfortable" around homosexuals.

Well I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable. I'm sure all the dust and sleeping on the floor and MREs in Iraq make you uncomfortable. You want a four star hotel, whiny baby?

THIS IS THE MILITARY GET OVER IT! [/drill sergeant]

And these are probably the same people who watch 300 and in addition to not blinking, get excited over the man-to-man action.

That's not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think. Just about everyone I've served with (three different units over about 6 years) has been cool with the idea. Also note that I've always been in combat units.

Ditto on Embassy duty. The only things we cared about were could he shoot straight and could he shine his shoes properly (Embassy duty is as much about appearances as it is reality).

That's not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think. Just about everyone I've served with (three different units over about 6 years) has been cool with the idea. Also note that I've always been in combat units.



I take it you didn't read my earlier post about just such a thing?

Now, I did. Not sure how I missed it. I usually try to scan through for related comments before making a comment.

That's not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think. Just about everyone I've served with (three different units over about 6 years) has been cool with the idea. Also note that I've always been in combat units.
And while I was at boot camp, I got the impression from the vast majority of new recruits that they had no problem with it either. The only ones who seemed to have a problem with it were the RDCs. (But then they were being RDCs at the time, so who knows what their real opinions were...)

Unlike you, I was in the service.

Remains to be seen. Since you're an admitted liar about one qualification (namely a license to practice law), I see no reason to disbelieve the old addage of "once a liar, always a liar"

That's not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think. Just about everyone I've served with (three different units over about 6 years) has been cool with the idea. Also note that I've always been in combat units.



I take it you didn't read my earlier post about just such a thing?

They don't read the posts if you're actually been in the service. To them, it's an automatic disqualification.

Everything you've seen is not real in their eyes, especially if it contradicts their unsubstantiated world view.

You mean they can't get justice through the system for being harassed over their orientation as it stands now? Even theoretically?

I'm going to try to find jello pudding pops at the store to give me comfort for the sudden depression I feel. But they won't be as good as I remember because they are being made by a different company now.

That's not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think. Just about everyone I've served with (three different units over about 6 years) has been cool with the idea. Also note that I've always been in combat units.



I take it you didn't read my earlier post about just such a thing?
What I meant was that there is a well-publicized history in the US military of not taking serious action in cases of sexual harrassment against women or gays in the service. Offenders are sometimes punished properly, but often they receive little more than the same kinds of ineffectual slaps on the wrist that we see in corporpate rule enforcement in the private sector, too. While on the flip side, the one who made the complaint about harrassment often faces future obstacles to career advancement as well as incidents of harrassment for having made the complaint at all.

What I am hoping for is a serious effort to get higher ranking personnel to take more seriously the rules against harrassment and retaliation against those who submit complaints about it.

Remains to be seen. Since you're an admitted liar about one qualification (namely a license to practice law), I see no reason to disbelieve the old addage of "once a liar, always a liar"

DD214 available on request. Maybe I should post it on the web, so you can look foolish.

i dont think it has to be a law. im pretty sure the president can make the change all on his own.
No. Congress enacted it by statute under Clinton, so only Congress can change it.

What I meant was that there is a well-publicized history in the US military of not taking serious action in cases of sexual harrassment against women or gays in the service. Offenders are sometimes punished properly, but often they receive little more than the same kinds of ineffectual slaps on the wrist that we see in corporpate rule enforcement in the private sector, too. While on the flip side, the one who made the complaint about harrassment often faces future obstacles to career advancement as well as incidents of harrassment for having made the complaint at all.

What I am hoping for is a serious effort to get higher ranking personnel to take more seriously the rules against harrassment and retaliation against those who submit complaints about it.

I'm slightly less depressed. But only slightly. Only slightly.

They don't read the posts if you're actually been in the service. To them, it's an automatic disqualification.


"Wah! They are not just disagreeing with me and pointing out that I'm a lying troll, they are OPPRESSING PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY WITH THEIR ANTI-MILITARY WAYS!"


Everything you've seen is not real in their eyes, especially if it contradicts their unsubstantiated world view.

"Also, I'm psychic!"

They don't read the posts if you're actually been in the service. To them, it's an automatic disqualification.

Everything you've seen is not real in their eyes, especially if it contradicts their unsubstantiated world view.

Uh, no, we ignore what you say because you change your claims on the fly. I believe Poli summed it up as such:

"Also, I've met every lawyer and rape victim in the whole world while I was wandering around in my capacity as a doctor/soldier/gigolo/lion tamer/Jesus, and they all agree with me, except for the Muslim ones, who are all evil, and whom I shot in the head from 20,000 feet away while operating my gun with my enormous penis."

That's her mocking you, if you can't understand it.

DD214 available on request. Maybe I should post it on the web, so you can look foolish.

Bullshit. DD214s can take up to a YEAR or more to get a full copy. I ought to know, because I actually have one, and that's what they told me when they were giving it to me.

Besides, you ought to have a copy of yours already anyway, and if you don't you're making a serious mistake.

Uh, no, we ignore what you say because you change your claims on the fly. I believe Poli summed it up as such:


I was talking about someone else's post (someone else who appears to have served) who is contradicting your world view.

I'm saying you won't believe them either.

Bullshit. DD214s can take up to a YEAR or more to get a full copy. I ought to know, because I actually have one, and that's what they told me when they were giving it to me.

Besides, you ought to have a copy of yours already anyway, and if you don't you're making a serious mistake.

Ah, I believe he meant he would SHOW IT TO YOU on request.

Bullshit. DD214s can take up to a YEAR or more to get a full copy. I ought to know, because I actually have one, and that's what they told me when they were giving it to me.

Besides, you ought to have a copy of yours already anyway, and if you don't you're making a serious mistake.

You can get an official copy of the DD214 rather quickly at the local courthouse.

I had to produce one (and give it up) official copy (wasn't willing to part with mine) for a security clearance background check. So I went to the courthouse and had one done.

Official copy.

Bullshit on you.

What I meant was that there is a well-publicized history in the US military of not taking serious action in cases of sexual harrassment against women or gays in the service. Offenders are sometimes punished properly, but often they receive little more than the same kinds of ineffectual slaps on the wrist that we see in corporpate rule enforcement in the private sector, too. While on the flip side, the one who made the complaint about harrassment often faces future obstacles to career advancement as well as incidents of harrassment for having made the complaint at all.

What I am hoping for is a serious effort to get higher ranking personnel to take more seriously the rules against harrassment and retaliation against those who submit complaints about it.

The reasons for the unequal enforcement isn't necessarily due to a particular prejudice against women or gays but more often a commander not wanting to look bad to his commander.

For example, if a brigade commander has six cases of sexual harassment in his brigade during a given year and another brigade commander in the same division has "only" four, all else being equal, the one with less incidents will be seen in a better light by the division commander (the guy who rights his evaluations, which are what get him promoted) than the commander with more. What this leads to is efforts by commanders to keep such things from being reported.

As for the slaps on the wrist, I attribute that to politics. Burning someone with connections can hurt you down the road.

I might add I had to provide a release of my military records (a SF 180) to a military forum.

You can't post there unless they know exactly what you did in service.

I was talking about someone else's post (someone else who appears to have served) who is contradicting your world view.

I'm saying you won't believe them either.
Not true. I've never had a problem with someone's credibility just because they served in the military.

And I think you'll find the vast majority of NSGers to be the same.

Ah, I believe he meant he would SHOW IT TO YOU on request.
Maybe. But this is DK we're talking about here. You never can tell.
You can get an official copy of the DD214 rather quickly at the local courthouse.

I had to produce one (and give it up) official copy (wasn't willing to part with mine) for a security clearance background check. So I went to the courthouse and had one done.

Official copy.

Bullshit on you.
Then prove it. Show us your DD214.

DD214 available on request. Maybe I should post it on the web, so you can look foolish.

Really? He'd look foolish, because you've already been shown to be a liar once and are being asked to back up another claim about yourself? He'd look foolish?

We must have different definitions of foolish.

The reasons for the unequal enforcement isn't necessarily due to a particular prejudice against women or gays but more often a commander not wanting to look bad to his commander.

For example, if a brigade commander has six cases of sexual harassment in his brigade during a given year and another brigade commander in the same division has "only" four, all else being equal, the one with less incidents will be seen in a better light by the division commander (the guy who rights his evaluations, which are what get him promoted) than the commander with more. What this leads to is efforts by commanders to keep such things from being reported.

As for the slaps on the wrist, I attribute that to politics. Burning someone with connections can hurt you down the road.

Hell, they cover up DUIs, suicides, and fatal accidents if they can. Not because they hate humanity or something.

Really? He'd look foolish, because you've already been shown to be a liar once and are being asked to back up another claim about yourself? He'd look foolish?

We must have different definitions of foolish.

Foolish?

http://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/get-service-records.html#response

The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) normally responds to requests for Separation Documents (such as DD Form 214) in ten (10) working days or less. However, requests that involve reconstruction efforts due to the 1973 fire or older records which require extensive search efforts may take much longer (such as requests for your complete OMPF). You will receive our response in writing by U.S. Mail.

It's even faster if you go to the courthouse.

Looking foolish now?

Foolish?

http://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/get-service-records.html#response



It's even faster if you go to the courthouse.

Looking foolish now?

Again, you're calling foolish a request that you back your shit up. How is it exactly that this little blurb backs up your statement that anyone who asks you to support your assertions is foolish?

It COULD be that the whole "takes a year" thing might've been the amount of time it takes for them to get the records to your home of record initially once you leave military service...

Maybe I am remembering incorrectly.

No. Congress enacted it by statute under Clinton, so only Congress can change it.
yeah i just looked that up. it was OK for clinton to do it by executive order but congress decided that in the future these changes had to be OK with them too.

i suppose it keeps the issue from being bounced back and forth every time a different party is in the white house. the only thing worse than not being allowed to serve because you are gay is being allowed to serve for a while then being booted out because the new president is an asshole.

Hell, they cover up DUIs, suicides, and fatal accidents if they can. Not because they hate humanity or something.

Indeed, all so they can look good to the asshole above them.

The reasons for the unequal enforcement isn't necessarily due to a particular prejudice against women or gays but more often a commander not wanting to look bad to his commander.

For example, if a brigade commander has six cases of sexual harassment in his brigade during a given year and another brigade commander in the same division has "only" four, all else being equal, the one with less incidents will be seen in a better light by the division commander (the guy who rights his evaluations, which are what get him promoted) than the commander with more. What this leads to is efforts by commanders to keep such things from being reported.

As for the slaps on the wrist, I attribute that to politics. Burning someone with connections can hurt you down the road.
I didn't say it was due to prejudice against women or gays. Personally, I think it likely is, but that is not really what's important about it.

We must accept, I think, that if some soldiers harrass another for being gay or female, that is evidence that those soldiers are prejudiced against gays and women.

Regardless of the reason why enforcement of rules against that are spotty, if those soldiers are not consistently and effectively punished under the rules, then that allows prejudice to grow in the military in direct contradiction to the rules.

And that makes it hard -- if not actually dangerous in some situations -- for gays to serve, regardless of what the rules say.

Since the rules are meant to maintain discipline and keep the military in line with US law (as much as possible), then no excuse for why enforcement of the rules is spotty is acceptable. Whether its bigotry or politics, it has the same bad effect.

Again, you're calling foolish a request that you back your shit up. How is it exactly that this little blurb backs up your statement that anyone who asks you to support your assertions is foolish?

Apparently, I backed up what I was saying. When you thought I couldn't.

I didn't say it was due to prejudice against women or gays. Personally, I think it likely is, but that is not really what's important about it.

We must accept, I think, that if some soldiers harrass another for being gay or female, that is evidence that those soldiers are prejudiced against gays and women.

Regardless of the reason why enforcement of rules against that are spotty, if those soldiers are not consistently and effectively punished under the rules, then that allows prejudice to grow in the military in direct contradiction to the rules.

And that makes it hard -- if not actually dangerous in some situations -- for gays to serve, regardless of what the rules say.

Since the rules are meant to maintain discipline and keep the military in line with US law (as much as possible), then no excuse for why enforcement of the rules is spotty is acceptable. Whether its bigotry or politics, it has the same bad effect.
I completely agree. Sadly, there aren't that many who would agree with you when it comes to their buddies or what have you. Humans in general seem to not like applying the rules to their friends. :(

Apparently, I backed up what I was saying. When you thought I couldn't.

Really? So you've filed a request for that information, and can show that you have?

Apparently, I backed up what I was saying. When you thought I couldn't.

What you were actually saying was that you'd post your DD214. I claimed you couldn't because of something I may have been mistaken over, but that doesn't change the fact that you still claimed you could prove you served in the military, and you still haven't provided that proof.

Now, are you going to provide that proof, or is this liberal going to make you look bad because he spent--however brief a time--in the military when you didn't?

Really? So you've filed a request for that information, and can show that you have?

The assertion was made that it takes a year to get the information.

I posted a link showing it takes 10 days. (pretty solid proof that it's not a year).

I've gotten the information on the same day, at the local courthouse.

If you want a copy, let me know.

What you were actually saying was that you'd post your DD214. I claimed you couldn't because of something I may have been mistaken over, but that doesn't change the fact that you still claimed you could prove you served in the military, and you still haven't provided that proof.

Now, are you going to provide that proof, or is this liberal going to make you look bad because he spent--however brief a time--in the military when you didn't?

I'll be more than happy to send you an official copy.

Actually, once I send proof to Kyronea, I want Kyronea to post:

"I was stupid not to believe Hotwife's assertion that he was in the military."

*snip*

Agreed about the reasons for inadequate enforcement of the regulations being important. I merely take issue with the idea (not that you were necessarily saying that, but it seems to be a fairly prevalent view) that the military has those issues because soldiers are a bunch of knuckle-dragging morons who are prejudiced against minorities as a rule.

And of course SOME soldiers are going to be prejudiced. In a military of 2 million people you'll have tons of assholes of every stripe, but I contend that you won't find them at a rate any different than that of the general population. If anything, in my experience, being forced to work with people of different ethnicities and backgrounds forces most soldiers to be more tolerant than they would have been.

Apparently, I backed up what I was saying.

My ass. You never do. You've managed to turn this into about whether you've been in the military or not - good job on the hijack by the way! - but the point is you claimed Obama had "thrown gays under the bus."

This thread is in direct contradiction of that claim, and the only way you can consider to have "backed up" your claim is by deliberately ignoring reality.

Your ability to ignore reality - while admirable - is not in any way a supporting argument. Sorry bub.

I'll be more than happy to send you an official copy.

I'd honestly rather you just post it here, like you said you would.

Agreed about the reasons for inadequate enforcement of the regulations being important. I merely take issue with the idea (not that you were necessarily saying that, but it seems to be a fairly prevalent view) that the military has those issues because soldiers are a bunch of knuckle-dragging morons who are prejudiced against minorities as a rule.

And of course SOME soldiers are going to be prejudiced. In a military of 2 million people you'll have tons of assholes of every stripe, but I contend that you won't find them at a rate any different than that of the general population. If anything, in my experience, being forced to work with people of different ethnicities and backgrounds forces most soldiers to be more tolerant than they would have been.
I agree that the number of bigoted individuals in the military is mostly likely similar to what it is in the general population.

But the problem with knuckle-dragging morons is that they follow the "one bad apple spoils the barrel" rule. The military isn't actually the general population. It is an organized group that follows a rules-based structure, and in which disciplined adherence to the rules has a greater emphasis than it does in the general civilian population.

In such controlled environments -- the military, large corporations, etc -- a small number of knuckle-draggers tend to have an impact far beyond their numbers. That is why, if there is a rule against harrassment, it must be enforced consistently every single time, at all levels of the organization. You must never allow people to get the idea that it's possible to skate by certain rules if you are a certain person, or hold a certain rank, or the politics of the group are going a certain way, or whatever.

Agreed about the reasons for inadequate enforcement of the regulations being important. I merely take issue with the idea (not that you were necessarily saying that, but it seems to be a fairly prevalent view) that the military has those issues because soldiers are a bunch of knuckle-dragging morons who are prejudiced against minorities as a rule.

And of course SOME soldiers are going to be prejudiced. In a military of 2 million people you'll have tons of assholes of every stripe, but I contend that you won't find them at a rate any different than that of the general population. If anything, in my experience, being forced to work with people of different ethnicities and backgrounds forces most soldiers to be more tolerant than they would have been.

In some ways, but I also saw--though of course my experiences are limited to boot camp, so your milage may vary--a general tendency towards having an insulting attitude to women. Especially to women. Constant mocking and insulting towards any sort of woman, especially integrated divisions. I believe our Chief even went so far as to say once something along the lines of "18-25 year old women? That's not for marrying. That's community pussy."

but the point is you claimed Obama had "thrown gays under the bus."

For the first two months of the transition, we were told DADT was not on the agenda. I am glad to see that reversed, but that isn't how it has been thus far.

Excellent.

For the first two months of the transition, we were told DADT was not on the agenda. I am glad to see that reversed, but that isn't how it has been thus far.

Perhaps, but that never warranted the definitive, "he's thrown you under the bus" comments Hotwife was spewing the whole time. Also note that he isn't actually changing his story anyway. Facts? Who needs 'em!

In some ways, but I also saw--though of course my experiences are limited to boot camp, so your milage may vary--a general tendency towards having an insulting attitude to women. Especially to women. Constant mocking and insulting towards any sort of woman, especially integrated divisions. I believe our Chief even went so far as to say once something along the lines of "18-25 year old women? That's not for marrying. That's community pussy."
It is so comforting to know that my tax dollars help put guns into the hands of men like that.

Perhaps, but that never warranted the definitive, "he's thrown you under the bus" comments Hotwife was spewing the whole time.
I certainly felt "thrown under the bus" the whole time. I would criticize Hotwife for many things, but not for that.

It is so comforting to know that my tax dollars help put guns into the hands of men like that.

It is possible that's not actually his view. He was an RDC, and the whole thing at boot camp is to play with your head as much as possible. It's a mind game. They're intentionally as insulting and crude as possible in every way they can be.

I wouldn't be SURPRISED if that was his actual attitude, but it may have just been something he said as part of being an RDC rather than actually being his real attitude.

But yeah, hearing that made me extremely super angry. I heard plenty of other equally offensive stuff to women and homosexuals too while I was there...it was really disgusting.

I certainly felt "thrown under the bus" the whole time. I would criticize Hotwife for many things, but not for that.

not even for the insipid stupidity of the phrase "throw under the bus?"

How about the gleeful, gloating way he kept throwing it about?

and the fact that he's not actually changing his story despite reality no longer even potentially accomodating it? doesn't that strike you as just a little bit irrational?

not even for the insipid stupidity of the phrase "throw under the bus?"

How about the gleeful, gloating way he kept throwing it about?

and the fact that he's not actually changing his story despite reality no longer even potentially accomodating it? doesn't that strike you as just a little bit irrational?

How about the fact that we already heard the term so many times that it's become extremely tired?

Seriously? Not one person has said that yet? A couple months ago people couldn't shut up complaining about it if it was ever used...

not even for the insipid stupidity of the phrase "throw under the bus?"

How about the gleeful, gloating way he kept throwing it about?

and the fact that he's not actually changing his story despite reality no longer even potentially accomodating it? doesn't that strike you as just a little bit irrational?
As I said, I would criticize Hotwife for many things, all of the above being good excuses to criticize him. Pointing out that Obama did, indeed, leave us out in the cold (or whatever cliche' you want to substitute for the "bus" line) for months is, however, quite correct.

How about the fact that we already heard the term so many times that it's become extremely tired?

Seriously? Not one person has said that yet? A couple months ago people couldn't shut up complaining about it if it was ever used...

To be honest I don't recall hearing it previous to Hotwife making it his pet phrase. But I do tend to avoid television, which is where I'm sure it got its initial overuse.

As I said, I would criticize Hotwife for many things, all of the above being good excuses to criticize him. Pointing out that Obama did, indeed, leave us out in the cold (or whatever cliche' you want to substitute for the "bus" line) for months is, however, quite correct.

Yes, because he could have done so much better to openly try to advance gay rights when he was campaigning for President rather than wait until he was actually elected President so that the vastly homophobic Religious Right base could be mobilized to vote for McCain and Caribou Barbie.

Really, it's that kind of impatient short-sightedness that's lost many American innovations to the Japanese.

To be honest I don't recall hearing it previous to Hotwife making it his pet phrase. But I do tend to avoid television, which is where I'm sure it got its initial overuse.

Fair enough.

I agree that the number of bigoted individuals in the military is mostly likely similar to what it is in the general population.

But the problem with knuckle-dragging morons is that they follow the "one bad apple spoils the barrel" rule. The military isn't actually the general population. It is an organized group that follows a rules-based structure, and in which disciplined adherence to the rules has a greater emphasis than it does in the general civilian population.

In such controlled environments -- the military, large corporations, etc -- a small number of knuckle-draggers tend to have an impact far beyond their numbers. That is why, if there is a rule against harrassment, it must be enforced consistently every single time, at all levels of the organization. You must never allow people to get the idea that it's possible to skate by certain rules if you are a certain person, or hold a certain rank, or the politics of the group are going a certain way, or whatever.

It's slowly getting better over the years, you can't get away with levels of harassment that would have been ignored even when I first came in, but given the nature of the beast (by which I mean the system being structured so that officers feel they need to hide things like that) I only expect it to improve so much.

In some ways, but I also saw--though of course my experiences are limited to boot camp, so your milage may vary--a general tendency towards having an insulting attitude to women. Especially to women. Constant mocking and insulting towards any sort of woman, especially integrated divisions. I believe our Chief even went so far as to say once something along the lines of "18-25 year old women? That's not for marrying. That's community pussy."

Your RDC may have been just playing a part, but likely he was just a dick.

Yes, because he could have done so much better to openly try to advance gay rights when he was campaigning for President
Yes he could have. Not allowing the claim that he "endorsed" Prop 8 to go uncontradicted would have been very important.
But in any case, we were talking about his behavior after the election, when for two months his team was saying that we shouldn't even look for DADT (the least consequential of the measures being considered at the federal level) to be pushed.

Yes he could have. Not allowing the claim that he "endorsed" Prop 8 to go uncontradicted would have been very important.
He had already released a statement that he opposed this. How often did he need to talk about something that was a local issue in a state that he had already won?

But in any case, we were talking about his behavior after the election, when for two months his team was saying that we shouldn't even look for DADT (the least consequential of the measures being considered at the federal level) to be pushed.
Yeah, it's not like he has an economic meltdown or two wars to deal with or anything like that. Obviously he was snubbing gays. :rolleyes:

Biden said that both himself and Obama were against gay marriage during the vice-presidential debates. Who cares about this if he's going to withhold their right to marry? When he moves to legalize gay marriage THEN I'll (gladly) stop doubting him but until then I still have no respect for him, no matter what the American public think.

Surely you consider this a step in the right direction, at least?

Or do demand complete ideological purity? You know, "you're with us or you're against us," all that stuff.

Meh...I really dont care...and I never saw the point anyway...Picking up on anyone in any occupation can be termed sexual abuse, so why's it matter when you get down to it?

I'm not against gay rights but openly being homosexual in the military isn't right really. Not because homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be gay but because its going to make a lot of people very uncomfortable about having to share bunks and showers and the like with them...

I'm not against gay rights but openly being homosexual in the military isn't right really. Not because homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be gay but because its going to make a lot of people very uncomfortable about having to share bunks and showers and the like with them...

Yeah, it could be awkward. But we have women in the military. They have sepperate barracks though I think.

I suppose they could do that with gays, but then their'd probably be appartide comparisons.

One way or another, any solution will just piss someone off.

Unlike you, I was in the service.

Regulations are always subject to the discretion of the commander's judgment.

Of course, if you were in the service, you would have known this.

It's the subtle difference that Clinton did not know, thus resulting in his dumping of gays from the military at an unprecedented rate.

I love that your argument basically rides on people just don't know how right you are because they weren't in the service.

I was in the service for eight years, yet I think your argument is fucking stupid. It's not that people were or weren't in the service that's the problem. It's that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

I'm not against gay rights but openly being homosexual in the military isn't right really. Not because homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be gay but because its going to make a lot of people very uncomfortable about having to share bunks and showers and the like with them...

Seriously? It'll make the soldiers feel uncomfortable, so the gays should just stay in the closet and pretend to be heterosexuals?

These are soldiers, right? How about if they feel uncomfortable, they can just sorta deal with their personal feelings instead?

Hell, gay people don't make me uncomfortable and I'm not even in the military. So we're not exactly talking Herculean labors and bravery only the openly gay Spartans could equal here.

In short - if these guys can be "comfortable" enough to go through basic training and then eat military food, they can be "comfortable" with their own sexuality too.

Actually, once I send proof to Kyronea, I want Kyronea to post:

"I was stupid not to believe Hotwife's assertion that he was in the military."

What would be more accurate is that Kyronea should post "One of the many, many incarnations of DK (who has repeatedly claimed to be several people all posting on one account) has proven that they can get in contact with someone who is willing to give up a copy of their DD214".

See, now, rational people recognize that everything about you is suspect, including your name. You've not just been proven to lie about personal facts about you. You've openly admitted that you make things up as needed.

Seriously? It'll make the soldiers feel uncomfortable, so the gays should just stay in the closet and pretend to be heterosexuals?

These are soldiers, right? How about if they feel uncomfortable, they can just sorta deal with their personal feelings instead?

Hell, gay people don't make me uncomfortable and I'm not even in the military. So we're not exactly talking Herculean labors and bravery only the openly gay Spartans could equal here.

In short - if these guys can be "comfortable" enough to go through basic training and then eat military food, they can be "comfortable" with their own sexuality too.


Some people WILL be uncomfortable, but some people are going to uncomfortable unless the entire military is made up of people who look like me. That's just how things are.

It's simply not a good reason to make decisions. The ONLY basis for who should be allowed in the military should be those that affect our ability to complete the mission.

its going to make a lot of people very uncomfortable

Screw them.

Screw them.

I think that might be whats making them uncomfortable, :p

As long as we're going down this path, how about we just let all the men and women shower together? After all, they're all soldiers, and since they're all 18 and up, I presume they are aware what both the male and female body look like.

I just want to inject that in there.

As long as we're going down this path, how about we just let all the men and women shower together? After all, they're all soldiers, and since they're all 18 and up, I presume they are aware what both the male and female body look like.

I just want to inject that in there.

I dont see why not...seems like a waste of money and space to separate em...

Worked in Starship Troopers didnt it?

Seriously? It'll make the soldiers feel uncomfortable, so the gays should just stay in the closet and pretend to be heterosexuals?

These are soldiers, right? How about if they feel uncomfortable, they can just sorta deal with their personal feelings instead?

Hell, gay people don't make me uncomfortable and I'm not even in the military. So we're not exactly talking Herculean labors and bravery only the openly gay Spartans could equal here.

In short - if these guys can be "comfortable" enough to go through basic training and then eat military food, they can be "comfortable" with their own sexuality too.

I don't think its about being "comfortable with their own sexuality." I imagine most people would be uncomfortable with a heterosexual of the other sex seeing them naked. If a woman doesn't like the idea of showering with a group of men, that doesn't mean she isn't "comfortable" with her sexuality. It sounds like you are implying that the only reason someone would feel uncomfortable showering with a gay guy is not "being comfortable" (being confused?) about their own sexuality, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because that would be rather a simplistic and cliche argument.

Now, you could argue that people's comfort is less important than including gays in the millitary, and I'd be inclined to agree with you. You could also argue that another solution should be found, such as perhaps having sepperate showers for gay soldiers. But I just feel you are, perhaps unintentionally, misrepresenting the issue.

I think that might be whats making them uncomfortable, :p

Well, get some lubricant, THEN screw them. :p

I dont see why not...seems like a waste of money and space to separate em...

Worked in Starship Troopers didnt it?

Maybe. After all, its not as bad as a lot of other things you have to do in the military. You make certain consesions regarding comfort, privacy, and even safety to serve in the military as it is.

This is such a bad idea.
For what reason?
Biden said that both himself and Obama were against gay marriage during the vice-presidential debates. Who cares about this if he's going to withhold their right to marry? When he moves to legalize gay marriage THEN I'll (gladly) stop doubting him but until then I still have no respect for him, no matter what the American public think. Gay marriage has consistantly been a state issue, not federal.

I don't know. Really, I thought that the "don't ask don't tell" was a sensible policy somewhat. Could you explain me why do you think it wasn't?Because it forces gays and bis to hide an aspect of their lives, where their straight counterparts don't have to.

No wait. The eventual end of punishment for open homosexuals in the military will depend on what will be the new policy. Iirc, here in Italy gays were excused from military service as if homosexuality were a disease: this is why I thought a good idea the "don't ask don't tell".

Btw, I think that sexuality (hetero or homo or bi or whatever) should remain a sort of private thing. If I and my fiancee were serving in the same unit, I wouldn't think that it would be appropriated for me to march along holding her hand or to kiss her in front of the platoon.
But you could openly admit that you are dating her. Or that you are married to her. Or, hell, that you think she's cute.
Openness isn't about allowing people to frolic in formation. It's allowing people to not have to constantly hide.

I'm not against gay rights but openly being homosexual in the military isn't right really. Not because homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be gay but because its going to make a lot of people very uncomfortable about having to share bunks and showers and the like with them...
Oh no...they'll be uncomfortable. Maybe we should get them celebrity chefs and daily backrubs while we're at it.

It's the military. How can you be okay with being shot at, but not having a guy think you have a cute ass?

I don't think its about being "comfortable with their own sexuality." I imagine most people would be uncomfortable with a heterosexual of the other sex seeing them naked.

That's pretty messed up. I don't have a problem with it. And if I was living in a barracks or a ship, I think I'd sorta have to get used to a lack of privacy anyway.

If a woman doesn't like the idea of showering with a group of men, that doesn't mean she isn't "comfortable" with her sexuality.

Well, in this case the argument is more that the men would be uncomfortable, and so she shouldn't be openly female.

It sounds like you are implying that the only reason someone would feel uncomfortable showering with a gay guy is not "being comfortable" (being confused?) about their own sexuality, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because that would be rather a simplistic and cliche argument.

It certainly seems that way. I mean really, these men (allegedly) have no problems showering with naked men, and don't even have problems showering with naked homosexual men, they just have a problem showering with naked and openly homosexual men?

That just doesn't even make sense. And it all speaks of the same institutional bigotry which doesn't need to be coddled and protected, but eradicated.

It certainly seems that way. I mean really, these men (allegedly) have no problems showering with naked men, and don't even have problems showering with naked homosexual men, they just have a problem showering with naked and openly homosexual men?

That just doesn't even make sense. And it all speaks of the same institutional bigotry which doesn't need to be coddled and protected, but eradicated.

The reason is simple. As you know, gay men, especially the open ones are constantly checking out and seeking to have sex with heterosexual men. They will often hit on, sexually harass/assualt, and rape straights. Especially macho alpha males in the military.

I could express indiference when it comes to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, this is a very 'delicate' issue that the president elect is dealing with.

It's the military. How can you be okay with being shot at, but not having a guy think you have a cute ass?

/Win.

That's pretty messed up. I don't have a problem with it. And if I was living in a barracks or a ship, I think I'd sorta have to get used to a lack of privacy anyway.

I'm just acknowledging that a lot of people probably feel that way. Do you disagree?

As for having to give up some privacy in the military, you are right of course. I believe I already acknowledged that.

Well, in this case the argument is more that the men would be uncomfortable, and so she shouldn't be openly female.

Well, the military has sepperate male and female barracks. Why not do the same with gay soldiers (if some soldeir's comfort is deemed worth the cost)? I agree Don't Ask Don't Tell is a bad policy either way.

It certainly seems that way. I mean really, these men (allegedly) have no problems showering with naked men, and don't even have problems showering with naked homosexual men, they just have a problem showering with naked and openly homosexual men?

That just doesn't even make sense. And it all speaks of the same institutional bigotry which doesn't need to be coddled and protected, but eradicated.

I agree that only being bothered by showering with a gay if you know they're a gay seems... odd.

However, the argument that "gays make them uncomfortable so they must be sexually confused lol" is a trite, simplistic cliche.

However, the argument that "gays make them uncomfortable so they must be sexually confused lol" is a trite, simplistic cliche.

I'll be glad to make another one:

"Gays make them uncomfortable, but their comfort is worth jack shit."

I'm just acknowledging that a lot of people probably feel that way. Do you disagree?

As for having to give up some privacy in the military, you are right of course. I believe I already acknowledged that.



Well, the military has sepperate male and female barracks. Why not do the same with gay soldiers (if some soldeir's comfort is deemed worth the cost)? I agree Don't Ask Don't Tell is a bad policy either way.



I agree that only being bothered by showering with a gay if you know they're a gay seems... odd.

However, the argument that "gays make them uncomfortable so they must be sexually confused lol" is a trite, simplistic cliche.


Serving with blacks makes some troops uncomfortable. Should we resegregate the military, or should blacks just not be openly black?

/Win.

w00t :)

I'll be glad to make another one:

"Gays make them uncomfortable, but their comfort is worth jack shit."

That's not a cliche. That's a legitimate and reasonable opinion. Bet you weren't expecting that.:)

However, I can feel sympathy if its just gay guys seeing them naked that bothers them. I'd be bothered by a gay guy seeing me naked, just like I'd be bothered by a woman (other than my girlfriend/wife) seeing me naked. Some people are just very private. Does that make them bigots?

That said, I suppose you could argue that those people probably shouldn't be in the military if they can't get over it.

Serving with blacks makes some troops uncomfortable. Should we resegregate the military, or should blacks just not be openly black?

I question the validity of this comparison. A fair comparison in this case would be gender segregation, not racial segregation. Though I know some people may have dificulty with the idea that the issue of gay rights is not an exact parallel for the issue of black rights.:rolleyes:

That's not a cliche. That's a legitimate and reasonable opinion. Bet you weren't expecting that.:)

However, I can feel sympathy if its just gay guys seeing them naked that bothers them. I'd be bothered by a gay guy seeing me naked, just like I'd be bothered by a woman (other than my girlfriend/wife) seeing me naked. Some people are just very private. Does that make them bigots?

It makes them bigots when their 'privacy' is directed at people based on, say, the other person's sexual orientation. I mean that's a rather specific and unusual sort of privacy is it not?

It's like, I'm a private person, because I hate when Jews watch me eat. Don't care about non-Jews watching me eat though. I'm just private.

Serving with blacks makes some troops uncomfortable. Should we resegregate the military, or should blacks just not be openly black?

KoL: 1; Rom: 0.

Your on a roll!

I question the validity of this comparison. A fair comparison in this case would be gender segregation, not racial segregation. Though I know some people may have dificulty with the idea that the issue of gay rights is not an exact parallel for the issue of black rights.:rolleyes:

Not a direct parallel, but its close enough for comparisons to be relevent. Bigots will always be uncomfortable. Why should we care?

That's not a cliche. That's a legitimate and reasonable opinion. Bet you weren't expecting that.:)

However, I can feel sympathy if its just gay guys seeing them naked that bothers them. I'd be bothered by a gay guy seeing me naked, just like I'd be bothered by a woman (other than my girlfriend/wife) seeing me naked. Some people are just very private. Does that make them bigots?

That said, I suppose you could argue that those people probably shouldn't be in the military if they can't get over it.

Exactly. You are in the military. There are group showers. There are group bunks. You will be seen naked. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it, or don't enlist in the first place. Military service is not a right or responsibility in the US...you aren't forced to be there, and if you can't deal with certain aspects of the job, you should find a different line of work.

(mind you, all of those "you"'s are impersonal, not directly refering to you.)

Not a direct parallel, but its close enough for comparisons to be relevent. Bigots will always be uncomfortable. Why should we care?

I still think gender segregation would be a closer parallel. Perhaps the guys don't want to be looked at by random people as sexual objects, and it has nothing to do with the person's orientation but rather that that person is viewing them, naked as a jaybird, as a sexual object.

It's the same reason that we have segregated men's and women's showers. Now, if you're in support of making the straight men, straight women, gay men, and gay women shower all together, then fine. Otherwise, you are completely missing the issue at hand.

Simpler though - we could have the gay men shower with the women, and the gay women shower with the men.

...Actually, that last one probably wouldn't help at all.

KoL: 1; Rom: 0.

Your on a roll!

What a vapid and unintelligent response in an overall interesting thread. Would you like to try debating, as opposed to sycophantically echoing?

Meh, I can see I'm going to get dogpiled here either way. Bring it on.:)

Meh, I can see I'm going to get dogpiled here either way. Bring it on.:)

Given the topic of this thread, that made me laugh.

Given the topic of this thread, that made me laugh.

Id ask if hed like it, but if he admitted it, wed have to kick him off NSG.

Given the topic of this thread, that made me laugh.

Howso?

Edit: I get it now. Fortunately I'm secure enough in my heterosexuality not to retroactively alter the post.

I still think gender segregation would be a closer parallel. Perhaps the guys don't want to be looked at by random people as sexual objects, and it has nothing to do with the person's orientation but rather that that person is viewing them, naked as a jaybird, as a sexual object.Because every woman and homosexual man will look at any naked male and inherently consider them a sexual object?

And more accurately, they just don't want to know they're being looked at as a sexual object.

Not to mention that straight men do still look around the showers and have their fair share of wandering eyes.

It's the same reason that we have segregated men's and women's showers. Now, if you're in support of making the straight men, straight women, gay men, and gay women shower all together, then fine. Otherwise, you are completely missing the issue at hand.I don't particularly have an issue with that.

Simpler though - we could have the gay men shower with the women, and the gay women shower with the men.Right. How's that more simple? Now we have women looking at gay men as a sexual object, and men checking out the lesbians. No problem solved, just who is targeted.

Id ask if hed like it, but if he admitted it, wed have to kick him off NSG.Besides...it's more fun when they struggle a little ;)

Howso?

Edit: I get it now. Fortunately I'm secure enough in my heterosexuality not to retroactively alter the post.

I have a gutter mind.

And I preserved it in my quote for all to see even if you do edit :)

What a vapid and unintelligent response in an overall interesting thread. Would you like to try debating, as opposed to sycophantically echoing?

Meh, I can see I'm going to get dogpiled here either way. Bring it on.:)

Wow, what a fridged and unprincipled response, ever hear of humor? And as I said, I am indifferent...a moderate one would say...on this issue, so I really don't have a podium to debate on.

Of course, you could bring me a stool.

Given the topic of this thread, that made me laugh.

My point x2

Besides...it's more fun when they struggle a little ;)


You only rape straight men though, dont you? We all know that openly gay men have an insatiable lust for straight ass.

Because every woman and homosexual man will look at any naked male and inherently consider them a sexual object?

Depends on the person in question, however, perception is reality.

And more accurately, they just don't want to know they're being looked at as a sexual object.

Ignorance is bliss? I won't argue that that's not ridiculous.

Not to mention that straight men do still look around the showers and have their fair share of wandering eyes.

Speak for yourself there buddy.

I don't particularly have an issue with that.

Good. We are in agreement.

Right. How's that more simple? Now we have women looking at gay men as a sexual object, and men checking out the lesbians. No problem solved, just who is targeted.

That was tongue-in-cheek, my friend. Notice the last sentence of that post.

Right. How's that more simple? Now we have women looking at gay men as a sexual object, and men checking out the lesbians. No problem solved, just who is targeted.

Also straite men pretending to be gay to get in the women's shower.

Also straite men pretending to be gay to get in the women's shower.

Foiled my plan.

You only rape straight men though, dont you? We all know that openly gay men have an insatiable lust for straight ass.
It's like homer simpson and donuts.
Depends on the person in question, however, perception is reality.
Reality is also reality: the reality being that a person joining the military will be seen naked. If they can't deal with that, they are going into the wrong field.


Speak for yourself there buddy.

Take a look around the gym shower. Plenty of roving eyes.



That was tongue-in-cheek, my friend. Notice the last sentence of that post.
Meh...I'm tired. Throws off the humor sensor evidently

Reality is also reality: the reality being that a person joining the military will be seen naked. If they can't deal with that, they are going into the wrong field.

In that case we should make it fair across the board and not have segregated showers at all - all the lesbian black women should have to shower with the straight asian guys, and everything in between.

Take a look around the gym shower. Plenty of roving eyes.

I do *not* look around the gym shower.

Wow, what a fridged and unprincipled response, ever hear of humor? And as I said, I am indifferent...a moderate one would say...on this issue, so I really don't have a podium to debate on.

Unprincipled? I suppose I was a little overly agressive, but hardly unprincipled. I do tend to take political debates very seriously, and I suck at comedy myself.

Normally this isn't a big issue for me either, but when it comes up I tend to take the anti-DADT side, both because its a needless and offensive infringement on gay rights, and because from a pragmatic point of view its hurting national security interests.

In that case we should make it fair across the board and not have segregated showers at all - all the lesbian black women should have to shower with the straight asian guys, and everything in between.Again, I see little issue with this. Again, you're going into a field of work where you will be shot at. If you can't deal with being seen naked, there's an issue.



I do *not* look around the gym shower.
That's good for you. Many guys do.

Again, I see little issue with this. Again, you're going into a field of work where you will be shot at. If you can't deal with being seen naked, there's an issue.

Well, you and I are in agreement.

That's good for you. Many guys do.

If you say so. I prefer my ignorance. It's quite blissful.

Who was it that equated it with having the african-americans shower separately? It's much more gender-related than race-related.

Exactly. You are in the military. There are group showers. There are group bunks. You will be seen naked. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it, or don't enlist in the first place. Military service is not a right or responsibility in the US...you aren't forced to be there, and if you can't deal with certain aspects of the job, you should find a different line of work.

(mind you, all of those "you"'s are impersonal, not directly refering to you.)

This is a perfectly reasonable argument, and one I can respect, perhaps even agree with.

However, this is another reason why I personally will never join the military.

Unprincipled? I suppose I was a little overly agressive, but hardly unprincipled. I do tend to take political debates very seriously, and I suck at comedy myself.

Normally this isn't a big issue for me either, but when it comes up I tend to take the anti-DADT side, both because its a needless and offensive infringement on gay rights, and because from a pragmatic point of view its hurting national security interests.

Ah well, that's understandable, comedy can be hard to get into, especially when you have a tough crowd. And I appologize for saying "unprincipled" as I guess I was a bit agressive on that stance.

And as for your position, I have nothing against it, however, I have nothing to say for it either. I am at a total blank when it comes to gays in the military.

He had already released a statement that he opposed this.
Back before the proposition had made it onto the ballot, he sent a letter saying he didn't want it on the ballot. Once the campaign over Prop 8 was in full swing, he had nothing to say, and when the Yes on 8 side brought his name into it, claiming he endorsed it, he let that stand uncontradicted.
How often did he need to talk about something that was a local issue in a state that he had already won?
Once would have been nice.

Yeah, it's not like he has an economic meltdown or two wars to deal with or anything like that.
It's not like the economic meltdown will be either easier or harder to deal with regardless of which way he went on this issue (the two wars, of course, will be harder to deal with if the armed forces keep purging troops-- particularly Arab interpreters, who tend disproportionately to be drawn from gay Arabs who really really want to see fundamentalist Islam brought down). And it's not like the President will never be expected to deal with multiple issues at the same time.
Obviously he was snubbing gays. :rolleyes:
Yes, obviously he was. I am glad to see he has reversed field.

To be fair though, there's a difference between being seen naked and being seen naked by people who are sexually attracted to her gender.

And as far as the "don't like it, don't join" argument, while that is perfectly legitimate under current conditions, how would that change if there was a draft in effect? Would it change at all?

Well, the military has sepperate male and female barracks. Why not do the same with gay soldiers (if some soldeir's comfort is deemed worth the cost)? I agree Don't Ask Don't Tell is a bad policy either way.


Well, almost all rapes are committed by males. Most victims are female:

"The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of U.S. rape victims are female.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Edit: That figure seems outdated:


Myth: Men can't be sexually assaulted.
Fact: In 2002, one in every eight rape victims were male.

http://www.uwstout.edu/cvpp/male_page.html

So, in that sense gender seperation makes sense.

As for homosexuals sharing close quarters with heterosexuals, it should be the gays who should be worried:


# Myth: Only gay men are sexually assaulted.
Fact: About 40% of rape victims identify themselves as heterosexual.
# Myth: It is only gay men that sexually assault other men.
Fact: The vast majority of men who sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual.

http://www.uwstout.edu/cvpp/male_page.html

Granted, some of these men who self identify as a heterosexual may be gay. But we are talking about gays serving openly in the military here and gays who are open wouldnt self identify as straight.

To be fair though, there's a difference between being seen naked and being seen naked by people who are sexually attracted to her gender.No, not particularly, there isn't. Gays are attracted to males...not all males, but some. Same as how hetero men are attracted to some women. Not all, but some.
Just because a guy is into other guys doesn't mean he fawns over every single male.

Not to mention, why does it matter? So another guy is looking at your cock while you shower. Does it hurt you? Do you even really notice?

And as far as the "don't like it, don't join" argument, while that is perfectly legitimate under current conditions, how would that change if there was a draft in effect? Would it change at all?

Changes significantly, as the government then says "Military service is now a responsibility, not a privilege." However, there are still options for admin type positions, rather than field.
though, you're still getting shot at. Really, I'd be more concerned about that than who thinks about me in the shower while they beat off. So no, maybe it doesn't change all that much.

Well, almost all rapes are committed by males. Most victims are female:

"The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of U.S. rape victims are female.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

So, in that sense gender seperation makes sense.

As for homosexuals sharing close quarters with heterosexuals, it should be the gays who should be worried:


http://www.uwstout.edu/cvpp/male_page.html

Granted, some of these men who self identify as a heterosexual may be gay. But we are talking about gays serving openly in the military here and gays who are open wouldnt self identify as straight.
Not to mention, we're talking the military. These generally aren't small guys who don't know how to fight. Add to the fact that it is a communal shower, and a round of "smear the queer" is much more likely than the one gay guy managing to molest the straight guy next to him.

Not to mention, we're talking the military. These generally aren't small guys who don't know how to fight. Add to the fact that it is a communal shower, and a round of "smear the queer" is much more likely than the one gay guy managing to molest the straight guy next to him.

Yes. So Obama and the military should take their time on this and find some solutions. Of course, privacy concerns of some str8 individuals should be addressed, somehow, but there are much more important issues like sexual assault and/or physical violence towards gays. (mostly done by people who self identify as str8)

As for communal showers, I use em all the time (dorms and gym), there are always partitions with curtains. Dont military have those? Privacy conscious individuals can wrap towels around themselves and then shut the curtain in showers in military?

As long as we're going down this path, how about we just let all the men and women shower together? After all, they're all soldiers, and since they're all 18 and up, I presume they are aware what both the male and female body look like.

I just want to inject that in there.

That reminds me of Starship Troopers and the ass slap scene :D

That reminds me of Starship Troopers and the ass slap scene :D

It was supposed to, but it was also a serious point in disguise.

Well, almost all rapes are committed by males. Most victims are female:

"The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of U.S. rape victims are female.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Edit: That figure seems outdated:


http://www.uwstout.edu/cvpp/male_page.html

So, in that sense gender seperation makes sense.

As for homosexuals sharing close quarters with heterosexuals, it should be the gays who should be worried:


http://www.uwstout.edu/cvpp/male_page.html

Granted, some of these men who self identify as a heterosexual may be gay. But we are talking about gays serving openly in the military here and gays who are open wouldnt self identify as straight.

Simple. Sexual assault, by anyone against anyone, should earn you a one-way ticket to jail. Of course, if DADT is lifted, they'll have to make sure that message is clear, and enforce the laws protecting gay soldiers from the inevitable abuses.

Its good... every serviceman and woman I ever met has stated that they honestly do not care if someone they know who's also in service is a homosexual/bisexual. There will be growing pains where bigots try to cause trouble but that has always happened with everything.

Yes. So Obama and the military should take their time on this and find some solutions. Of course, privacy concerns of some str8 individuals should be addressed, somehow, but there are much more important issues like sexual assault and/or physical violence towards gays. (mostly done by people who self identify as str8)I don't see the risk of physical violence being too great in a communal shower, just given the sheer number of people. All cases I've heard of have been, at most, 3 on 1 things.
And again, I don't take privacy issues to be a huge thing within the military (okay, or in normal life...but that's another story). You're in an organization that is working to create a single unit out of many individuals. I see no reason to hide your ass from the person who will be protecting it, even if that person happens to think its cute and stares.
As for communal showers, I use em all the time (dorms and gym), there are always partitions with curtains. Dont military have those? Privacy conscious individuals can wrap towels around themselves and then shut the curtain in showers in military?
Not sure about the military. My dorm and gym were both without partitions. You deal with it.

No wait. The eventual end of punishment for open homosexuals in the military will depend on what will be the new policy. Iirc, here in Italy gays were excused from military service as if homosexuality were a disease: this is why I thought a good idea the "don't ask don't tell".

Btw, I think that sexuality (hetero or homo or bi or whatever) should remain a sort of private thing. If I and my fiancee were serving in the same unit, I wouldn't think that it would be appropriated for me to march along holding her hand or to kiss her in front of the platoon.

Oh, this is such a stupid argument and I'm so tired of hearing it. Straight people are open about being straight (and I'm straight, fyi), and yet no one accuses them of injecting sexuality into everything. You are speaking from a position of heterosexual privilege, period. You just don't want to think about two men doing "yucky" things.

Honestly. And it's the homophobes doing all the thinking about sex. You know what makes a private thing private? When you aren't staring at it.

(edit) Now for this straight/gay communal thing. This is pretty important. I would not want to be in an open shower with straight men, and I can understand why a straight person would not want to share something like that with a gay person of their gender. I think we can work around this, though. Military billeting is often outdated and crumbling anyway--the barracks I lived in at Hunter Army Airfield in the mid-90s had been condemned by the Air Force, and when I first joined the Army (not in now) I was in barracks from the WWII era! We need to renovate/rebuild them anyway. Might as well do it in a fashion that affords more privacy for people. Maybe institute certain hours for gayfolk and straight folk to shower separately from one another. I am not saying gay people would rape straight people, nor necessarily vice-versa. Hell, most straight guys, I hope, would not rape straight women, nor vice versa (I hope like crazy). But that doesn't mean that people who could potentially be involved with one another sexually shouldn't be able to demand private spaces apart from one another.

At least in permanent-party barracks this isn't such a problem. At most, two or three people share a room and have a bathroom between them, just a normal one that they take turns using--no more communal showers.

I don't see the risk of physical violence being too great in a communal shower, just given the sheer number of people. All cases I've heard of have been, at most, 3 on 1 things.


True that but I wasnt just talking about communal showers.


And again, I don't take privacy issues to be a huge thing within the military (okay, or in normal life...but that's another story). You're in an organization that is working to create a single unit out of many individuals. I see no reason to hide your ass from the person who will be protecting it, even if that person happens to think its cute and stares.


Well, some people are private, it's not up to you to judge. And if someone stares at your ass in showers, thats weird and I'm gay.

If there are cheap ways to address those privacy issues without decreasing military efficiency, I see no reason why those requests shouldnt be met.


Not sure about the military. My dorm and gym were both without partitions. You deal with it.

LOL, why? How much can partitions and curtains cost? And if u have a room mate, that means u cant jerk off anywhere.

True that but I wasnt just talking about communal showers.Gotcha.



Well, some people are private, it's not up to you to judge. And if someone stares at your ass in showers, thats weird and I'm gay.

If there are cheap ways to address those privacy issues without decreasing military efficiency, I see no reason why those requests shouldnt be met.
I know that the Marines have specifically requested that their bunks are not "improved" to allow for more people to have individual rooms. Why? Because it, in their opinion, reduces comraderie, which is paramount within the Marines. You do everything together, as a unit.


LOL, why? How much can partitions and curtains cost? And if u have a room mate, that means u cant jerk off anywhere.
Old buildings. Took me all of one day to get used to it. And you can still jerk off a) when the roommate is asleep, b) when the roommate is in class or c) in a toilet stall.

Gotcha.

I know that the Marines have specifically requested that their bunks are not "improved" to allow for more people to have individual rooms. Why? Because it, in their opinion, reduces comraderie, which is paramount within the Marines. You do everything together, as a unit.


Do they shit together? No. But I understand bunk rooms and stuff.


Old buildings. Took me all of one day to get used to it. And you can still jerk off a) when the roommate is asleep, b) when the roommate is in class or c) in a toilet stall.

a) LOL b) OK c) eww, could be smelly and huge gaps between the door and partition, plus its funny when u are taking a dump and u hear whacking sounds.

Do they shit together? No. But I understand bunk rooms and stuff.

Wrong. They do shit together. I've, personally, been sitting on the shitter and had a Colonel sit down on a toilet so close his leg was touching mine.

We did shit together. We showered together. If privacy is your gig, then the military likely isn't. You aren't an individual. You're a small part of a larger unit.

Do they shit together? No. But I understand bunk rooms and stuff.edit: See Jocabia.



a) LOL b) OK c) eww, could be smelly and huge gaps between the door and partition, plus its funny when u are taking a dump and u hear whacking sounds.
*shrug*...my roommate and I both made it through two years of bad dorms one way or the other...haha

Wrong. They do shit together. I've, personally, been sitting on the shitter and had a Colonel sit down on a toilet so close his leg was touching mine.

We did shit together. We showered together. If privacy is your gig, then the military likely isn't. You aren't an individual. You're a small part of a larger unit.

Wow. The way you describe it, it sounds like they don't even have cubicles with doors on them.

Wow. The way you describe it, it sounds like they don't even have cubicles with doors on them.

I think he actually meant something like that, do those kinda toilets even exist?

Of course when u are in a war, privacy may be something shallow but I think thats a bit extreme, I mean a plastic partition shouldnt be costly?

Simple. Sexual assault, by anyone against anyone, should earn you a one-way ticket to jail. Of course, if DADT is lifted, they'll have to make sure that message is clear, and enforce the laws protecting gay soldiers from the inevitable abuses.

I hope they can do those but my point was: there are more important issues than privacy issues that you and Neo-Erusea were talking about.

I hope they can do those but my point was: there are more important issues than privacy issues that you and Neo-Erusea were talking about.

I don't see why they can't also give a reasonable degree of privacy, to a point. However, dealing with assualts obviously takes priority.

Wow. The way you describe it, it sounds like they don't even have cubicles with doors on them.

Yup. No walls around the toilets. Just toilets in a row.

29 Palms out on Camp Wilson where a lot of the reservists go for their two week gigs.

I think he actually meant something like that, do those kinda toilets even exist?

Of course when u are in a war, privacy may be something shallow but I think thats a bit extreme, I mean a plastic partition shouldnt be costly?

It's not about cost. It's about their being no need to encourage individuality. You also don't get to decorate your uniform. Unsurprisingly, that also has nothing to do with the cost of ribbons and bows.

It's not about cost. It's about their being no need to encourage individuality. You also don't get to decorate your uniform. Unsurprisingly, that also has nothing to do with the cost of ribbons and bows.

So forced exposure as a form of mental conditioning?

Again, there are reasons why I would do just about any job ahead of joining the military. No offense intended to those who choose that life but...

So forced exposure as a form of mental conditioning?

Again, there are reasons why I would do just about any job ahead of joining the military. No offense intended to those who choose that life but...

You think that you've got time for modesty in war? There is a reason they don't indulge us to alleviate our discomforts.

The fact is that given that we might end up working with gays in other armed forces, it's actually bad training that indulge the homophobia of some service men and women like we do.

You think that you've got time for modesty in war? There is a reason they don't indulge us to alleviate our discomforts.

I suppose so. Its just not the life for everyone, as I'm sure you know.

[QUOTE]The fact is that given that we might end up working with gays in other armed forces, it's actually bad training that indulge the homophobia of some service men and women like we do.

Agreed on this for sure.

Back before the proposition had made it onto the ballot, he sent a letter saying he didn't want it on the ballot. Once the campaign over Prop 8 was in full swing, he had nothing to say, and when the Yes on 8 side brought his name into it, claiming he endorsed it, he let that stand uncontradicted.
So then... Who's this man claiming to be Senator Obama stating that he is against Pop 8 on MTV, Nov 1, 2008?
http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/

Once would have been nice.
Already showed that he did.

It's not like the economic meltdown will be either easier or harder to deal with regardless of which way he went on this issue (the two wars, of course, will be harder to deal with if the armed forces keep purging troops-- particularly Arab interpreters, who tend disproportionately to be drawn from gay Arabs who really really want to see fundamentalist Islam brought down). And it's not like the President will never be expected to deal with multiple issues at the same time.

Yes, obviously he was. I am glad to see he has reversed field.
Skuld's Holy Hammer... get over yourself.

I mean, seriously, get over yourself.