|
by E.L. Pattullo IF ON AVERAGE, gays are less martial than straights, it is only because some segment of the gay community has, traditionally, cultivated an effeminacy that disdains soldierly virtues. Many gays, certainly, are as courageous, and as willing and able to fight, as are straights. With homosexuality out of the military closet they would be no more likely to be security risks than anyone else. Why, then, does the military brass oppose Bill Clinton's decision to admit homosexuals into the armed forces? A principal reason is that the President clearly intends that gays serve with other males in the same outfits and with no distinction being made. It is scarcely imaginable that it should be otherwise. But the reasons that persuade us to maintain some separation between males and females apply with equal force to gays and straights--with the single exception of the possibility of pregnancy. Just as straight men and women are powerfully motivated to have sex with each other, so gays are motivated to have sex, not just with other gays, but with any person of their own gender to whom they are attracted. Gays are as able as the rest of us to control their libido, which means that--like the rest of us--they often need a bit of help in doing so. The intensity of the sexual urge gay or straight--is so strong that society recognizes that it is sensible, even in this permissive era, to maintain some barriers between potential sex partners. Least important of many difficulties (but not insignificant to those who respect the dignity of our troops) is that individuals, male or female, generally dislike being forced to perform their private functions in front of others who, unilaterally, view them as sex objects. A country just awakening to women's sensitivity to unwanted sexual attention should not find it difficult to understand why a man would prefer not to bunk directly above, below, or next to another man who finds him sexually attractive. Or to shower with him. If some military quarters now offer the limited privacy of college dormitories, many still consist of barracks with common sleeping rooms, gang showers and toilets, and no escape from one's fellows. In the field, even closer physical intimacy is the norm rather than the exception. Nor is it simply a matter, as the current cant phrase has it, of persuading straight soldiers to ignore what gay ones "do in the bedroom." It is childish to imagine that we leave our sexuality behind as we go about our daily affairs. Only a child (or a sophist trying to make a point) can deny awareness of the sexual nuance, subtle though it be, that invades every facet of adult human relationships. The most gentlemanly male, or ladylike (if that word still has currency) female, cannot help giving and receiving sexual signals in even the most ordinary social transactions. Though the quality of relations between individuals of the same gender and those of opposite genders differs, both are affected by the participants' sexuality. To imagine that openly gay soldiers will be indistinguishable from straight comrades except in their off-duty behavior is to ignore the reality of our animal nature. Clinton's only acknowledgment of this difficulty, to date, is the implication that he will allow the military to enforce strict rules governing the overt sexual behavior of all ranks. However strict, it is unlikely that any set of rules can obviate the concern of military leaders that enlistment of open gays will be "prejudicial to good order and discipline." Stuffy though it sounds, it is a well-placed concern. A Sexual Continuum? IN A country that often seems obsessed with sex, our ignorance about many of its aspects remains abysmal. Consequently, we can only say it is likely that sexual orientation spans a continuum from exclusively straight at one end to purely gay at the other. How individuals are grouped along this continuum no one knows, but it is a good guess that a significant number of men and women are somewhere in the middle and capable-in certain circumstances-of responding erotically to either sex. In many individuals the urge to have sex with the opposite sex co-exists with a capacity to enjoy sex, also, with those of their own gender. The military, therefore, has reason to worry not only that gays will interact erotically among themselves, but also that many men, primarily straight, will get amorously involved with gay comrades. In addition, in circumstances where opposite-sex partners are unavailable (a frequent situation in military life), the fact that homosexuality is not absolutely prohibited is likely to lead to an increase in the number of same-sex liaisons. The example of the prisons is instructive on this score. While it is estimated that rather less than 10 per cent of American males live gay lives (whether in or out of the closet), Alfred Kinsey found that well over a third of the men he interviewed had responded to homosexual stimuli to the point of orgasm at some time in their lives. This vastly enlarges the potential for disruption that enlistment of gays presents. But why should homosexual activity within the ranks be a problem--apart from offending straight sensibilities? Perhaps it need not be seriously damaging to all branches of the service, but combat troops are heavily dependent on maintaining a macho culture, marked by stern discipline and a rigid hierarchy of command. Fighting forces must be habituated to a world so disciplined as to ensure unquestioning obedience in life-and-death situations. These same troops must be capable also of enduring long periods in the field without loss of morale, even while subject to excruciating boredom and to the absence of all normal amenities---including the company of members of the opposite sex. Military authorities are unanimous in their insistence that they know of no way to establish the rugged culture essential to their task other than through the uncompromising command structure traditional to the profession. Respect for superiors, verging on fear, must animate the conduct of all concerned. Artificial barriers between those of greater and lesser rank are purposely erected to prevent the development of the easy familiarity that encourages one person to question the authority of another. It is easy to caricature this aspect of military life as a tough-guys game played by overgrown boys. Civilian life simply offers no counterpart to the military's need for mores that enable groups to function effectively both through long periods of inactivity and in desperate situations where each individual knows he is in danger of losing his life. Introduction of the certainty of sexual intrigue into combat ranks poses a serious threat to military culture. Only those too young to have experienced amorous love, or too old to remember its power, can deny its potential for disrupting working relationships. It takes no perfervid imagination to recognize the temptation faced by a homosexual officer or non-com responsible for shaping a beautiful young GI into an obedient soldier. Nor is it absurd to imagine that same youth tempted to use the power of his beauty to gain favor with those who control every facet of his daily life. Think, also, of the reactions of any who imagine (rightly or wrongly) that peers are being favored because of their attractiveness. Stern regulations can limit the occasions when such passions erupt into public view, but they cannot eliminate them, nor can they obviate the certainty that these emotions will affect the covert actions of those gripped by them. Implicit in the argument that the sexual orientation of many men is someplace between gay and straight is the idea that for them--if not for those at the far ends of the continuum--it is largely learned behavior. Too little is known to be certain just how or when that learning takes place. Yet it is entirely possible that some young people are still in the process of determining their primary orientation even into early adulthood. Such youths will face a new hazard in joining a military that makes no distinction between gay and straight. The intimate, aroundthe-dock conditions of barracks life will put them--as compared to their civilian counterparts--at increased risk of gravitating toward primary homosexuality. The Varieties of Love THERE IS an added difficulty that often troubles relations between gays and straights. Love comes in many varieties, one of which is strong affection devoid of amorous longing. Such relationships are highly valued by straights, including the many who deplore homosexuality. It is good to have a real buddy. Traditionally, friendship of this kind has been prized by the military because, spread through a well-trained platoon, it produces a kind of bonding that greatly enhances group performance. But the love that binds buddies is premised on a total absence of sexual desire. The known presence of gays in the armed forces is apt to make love of this kind suspect, interfering with an important element of esprit de corps. To be uncertain whether the friendly arm about the shoulder or comradely pat on the rear is motivated by eros or fraternity is disconcerting. Discovery that it is the former, especially after a degree of intimacy has already been established, prompts anger in many straights because they then feel they have been misled in a very basic way. On another point, it is certain that recruitment of sexually active gays will result in a pronounced increase in the incidence of AIDS amongst our troops. Battlefields are bloody. In addition to the fear of death by enemy action, combat troops will have to worry about being infected by the blood of wounded comrades. Even in peacetime, rigorous field training inevitably results in scrapes and scratches in situations where soldiers are, willy-nilly, in close contact with one another. The careful procedures that protect civilian workers who come into contact with those who are HIVpositive are simply not possible under field conditions. Many members of the military's gay population will be content to keep their sexual orientation to themselves in an integrated military, secure in the knowledge that it is no longer any business of the brass. Others are likely to join forces with political activists in the civilian sector, vigorously insisting on extending all "gay rights" to those in the service. Housing for married couples is provided on many military bases; are gay couples to be denied? Already, the extension to gays' dependents of rights long enjoyed by wives and families (e.g., health and pension benefits) is demanded. Campaigns to root out homophobes (too often defined as any who do not support the gay political agenda) will become a regular feature of military life. It is foreseeable, also, that pressure for proportional representation of gays at all levels of command will grow, raising the spectacle of affirmative'action recruitment of gay sergeants. Finally, it is predictable that armed forces in which gays serve equally with straights will, eventually, attract a disproportionate number of homosexuals. At present this seems farfetched because gays have long tended--understandably--to be antagonistic toward a military that rejects them. But, once the services accept openly gay recruits, the fact that the military offers a career spent surrounded by other males will surely be tempting to those who prefer male company. The problems I have sketched will be compounded as the ranks come to include ever growing numbers of homosexuals. The American military is highly responsive to civilian control, and it is thoroughly professional. If ordered to do so it will find ways to adapt to the enlistment of individuals who proudly declare themselves gay. But doing so has the potential to diminish permanently the efficiency of combat troops. Is the gain for the gay community worth the likely loss in the effectiveness of our military? The tolerance that is emerging in the United States (consequent upon the gays' own long, largely admirable campaign against irrational hatred) offers homosexuals assurance that they will soon be able to move freely in almost every walk of civilian life. The reasons for continuing to exclude them from serving in the armed forces rest on basic differences between military and civilian life. The difficulties posed by integration of gay and straight are serious, and have nothing to do with prejudice or blind tradition. President Clinton, probably because of his own lack of military experience, has erred in overruling his senior military advisors in order to keep an unfortunate promise made in the heat of the campaign. Thanks to their professionalism our armed forces will survive, but they will be weakened. Though hard to quantify, the cost to morale will be real and lasting.
|
