In those days gays didn't even "existed".

Well, they didn't officially exist, of course. Or weren't allowed in if said gayness was know,

In truth, one of the few American gay communities of that time was in the military.

And…yes, this ad is hot!

yeah, that didnt happen in iraq.

Ironic isnt? That looks like heaven.

Weird, I have that ad framed & hanging in my bathroom. . .perhaps I should e-bay it.

In those days, "gays" didn't exist as a term of politics. However, in all-male surroundings, there was a lot of homo-sensuality. Homo-sensuality is about love and comfortable nudity between men who are secure in their heterosexuality.

@jason:

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Jason,

You don't know Jack.

He was sure saying my name a lot last night.

I didn't say there was no homosexuality or bisexuality during those days. Indeed, it's my view that most men are bisexual in orientation.

However, male-male sexual intercourse was proscribed legally and oppressed culturally. It was a jail time offfense if you engaged in sex with another man. Everyone had to be heterosexual in terms of their outlook.

When there is a social understanding that everyone has to be heterosexual in their outlook, it results in much more comfort between the men.

@jason:

The question still stands.

When your buddies are getting killed around you in war and there are no women to erase the trauma, the object of love and healing would be with other men. Sex would come natural without guilt.

"When there is a social understanding that everyone has to be heterosexual in their outlook, it results in much more comfort between the men."

Between WHICH MEN? The STRAIGHT men?

AmazingPenis,

In the context of the times, yes, heterosexual. Homosexuality was punishable by jail time back then. It was a complete and utter no no.

The understanding between all men was that all men had to be heterosexual. Under this system of uniform thinking, men were relaxed enough to share nude bathing, put arms around each other (as you often see in military photos from ww2) etc etc.

I'm simply informing you. I'm not advocating the proscription of homosexuality which existed then.

@Jon: Jon, where did you get a copy of the ad to frame?

@jason:

I've read several books/talked to several people who have said basically the same thing. I think some of the guys just don't quite get what you're saying.

There were, of course, men with a same-sex orientation back then. But I think if you brought one into the future and tried to have a conversation with him about gay rights issues, the dialogue would quickly become grid-locked and confused. He would understand gay sex, of course, but would have no concept of "gay rights" or even "gay" as an identity. From the culture and era he comes from, that simply didn't exist. In fact, he may feel a bit squeemish about self-identifying as "gay" as you're describing it to him. He would probably feel very paranoid by you discussing these topics so openly and loudly, and may faint at the thought of dating a guy (much less marrying one!).

I think part of what he's saying is that straight men feel more comfortable being affectionate with other men when there's no threat of being labeled as gay. I notice this in countries like Morocco. No one thinks its gay for men to hold hands or hug, so straight (really straight) guys do it frequently. They look very gay to Americans! It's more like the relationship straight women have with each other here.

Drresol,

Thank you very much.

I'm constantly amazed at the lack of clear thinking by some people who post here. Generally, there's a lack of understanding of human sexuality. Certainly, there's a lack of understanding of human sexuality before it was politicized by the gay rights movement.

@TimNCGuy

i just found it on ebay. it's in the 16 aug 1943 issue of life. cover title "how stong is japan?".

http://www.marksimpson.com/blo.....g-his-age/