dropping the soap

SHOCK: Is the Pentagon Seriously Considering Separate (But Equal) Showers for Gay Soldiers?

As we learn the U.S. Senate’s Armed Services Committee is gearing up for next month’s hearings on 1993’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law — where Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of Joint of Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen will testify at Sen. Carl Levin’s request — comes word that the just-leaked memo out of Mullen’s office wasn’t some draft legal opinion, but was actually a working copy of the Pentagon’s official take on whether to repeal the law. Namely, that it’s too soon. But equally as ridiculous as extending the timeline of repeal is the relevation the Defense Department is actually considering a “separate but equal” approach to letting gay men and women serve in the military. That is, they can be out, so long as they shower in different facilities.

You want to talk about a waste of resources, time, and energy in letting gay soldiers serve openly? It’s this, via the NYT:

Despite the uncertainty of timing, another military official said that the Department of Defense was beginning to look at the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases and what to do about troops who are stationed or make port calls in nations that outlaw homosexuality.

The only realistic concern we can see is the last one: how to handle soldiers stationed in nations where homosexuality is illegal. (That’s not a problem unique to the military; that’s a problem faced by any visitor to such a nation.)

But what all of this forgets is that America’s military personnel are trained professionals. Yes, there are instances of sexual harassment and assault. That’s terrible, and should be dealt with. But the notion that separate shower and bathing facilities are needed, to keep the heteros at a safe distance from the homos, is an insult to the men and women keeping this country safe. Straight guys have seen dick before; straight women have seen titties. Implementing such a ridiculous separate-but-equal initiative isn’t just prohibitively expensive, but it insinuates being open about one’s sexuality — as straight soldiers have been able to do FOREVER — is akin to making unsolicited sexual advances.

This problem always arises when we’re talking about sexuality, because the powers that be get hung up on the sex part of it all. Imagine if the Pentagon advised the White House to create separate-but-equal facilities for the races, which, uh, was a reality just a few decades ago. Of course that wouldn’t go over. But because gays and lesbians are a “sexual” minority, we get caught up on whether penises go into vaginas or anuses, and that’s not the point at all.


Moreover, there appears to have been another one of these “secret” meetings among Gay Inc. and military groups to discuss DADT repeal strategy, something we haven’t heard much, if anything, about from these organizations. (They refuse to be interviewed on the record.) Among those who sent representatives to HRC’s Washington headquarters on Wednesday: the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the Palm Center, Servicemembers United, and the Center for American Progress, according to AmericaBlog.

Not in attendance? Anyone representing an entity knows as “the Obama administration.” But maybe that’s part of HRC’s seven-year plan to give the Obama administration a pass on, you know, doing stuff.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #and #barackobama stories and more


  • yeahwhathesaid

    I would love to be in the homo-only shower. I can only imagine army men in the shower.

  • chris

    Don’t these guys realise that America is the only Nato/Western?Developed country, besides Turkey, that doesn’t allow gays to serve. At some point they’ve gotta realise they’re becoming a joke right?

  • B

    “another military official said that the Department of Defense was beginning to look at the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases…”

    Since the U.S. is a member of NATO, why don’t our generals just ask their peers in other countries as to what their policies are? Why reinvent the wheel?

  • Lukas P.

    Does the US need to re-invent the wheel? Policies for integrating g/l soldiers into all aspects of military life — including sleeping, showering and shitting arrangements — have already been written and successfully implemented by other nations’ armed forces.

    Why do we have to waste time and personnel trying to figure out how Pvt. Hetero and Pvt. Homo will manage to towel dry themselves??

  • The Duke

    i think thats hot. it better be an exclusive shower with a steam room and with dim lighting. im not sure how i feel about this. they’re doing this and i dont like it. homosexuals should not openly serve in the military. and for the main reason being the military draft. homosexuality has been a leading excuse to avoid being drafted in the days of vietnam when everything else wasnt good enough. do you guys really believe that someone who does not believe in fighting should be closed that door as one of the options to gee, idk, stay ALIVE? or not fight against their moral code? just imagine, if homosexuals are allowed to serve, then all men 18 and over will be forced to fight in such a case. straight and hetero. if not, they may risk being incarcerated. i dont know why people buy into the hype of ‘keeping the country safe’ when in reality, if all of our men and women are overseas fighting, who the hell is at home!?!?!?!?!?

  • X

    I hate how gays are forced to support a country that doesn’t even support them, or know anything about them.

  • Steve

    I think Obama should just nominate new people for Secretary of Defense and Chairman of Joint of Chiefs.

    These two clearly are not on board with his policy directions. And, leaking the document is just intentional insubordination. They are very able to keep secrets in thousands of other topics, so the leak cannot be unintentional.

  • Lukas P.

    @Steve (No. 7). Good idea, but let me suggest that the Pentagon doesn’t readily bend over and comply at the POTUS’ command.

    He’d be seen as interfering with the “war effort” and is already seen as weak on defense. Exec. power has its limits, as he’s learning, and it would take a much bigger issue than DADT for him to resort to replacing the folks in those positions, and this issue isn’t anywhere that high on his list of priorities. IMHO, of course.

  • FakeName

    @The Duke: Um, we haven’t had a draft in the United States since the 1970s and even if there were suddenly a draft anyone who wished not to serve could claim conscientious objector status.

  • simon

    Where will they put the bisexual male soldiers?

    One can’t help but feel that the current crop of military brass are retarded. They’re putting American security at risk with their outdated notions of who can serve.

  • Truthseeker_Too

    So I’m confused…. Where does the brass think gay soldiers that are currently serving in our military shower nowadays? I’m mean, hello! Straight soldiers ARLEADY share shower, bathroom, sleeping and combat quarters with their gay and lesbian brethern. Plus, its not like Israel, Germany and Great Britian haven’t already figured this out–its NOT a problem.

  • Brian NJ

    It they can’t help us by the midterms, I am staying home, and telling everyone I know to do the same.

  • ChrisM

    Where does it say that they will have separate showers for gay men and straight men? I only saw it say that they will need to “change shower facilities and locker rooms.” To me it sounds like they might just get rid of group showers and use stalls.

    The only thing I can see pointing to a separation of gays and straights is the locker room comment. But having separate locker rooms for straights and gays is completely ridiculous. If they were truly worried about a man being sexually assaulted, they wouldn’t put gay men together either (note that I’m not saying it WOULD happen, I’m just making the same assumptions that they are to suggest a potential locker room separation). Each would have his own room, and that’s obviously not going to happen. What they’re worried about is their precious straight males getting scared that some gay man is going to touch them. Well just educate them a little about homosexuality and, if they do get scared anyway, remind them they’re in a fucking war where there are many worse things to be afraid of.

  • terrwill

    Back of the shower?

  • Sgt. R. U. Gaye

    I guess this farce is better than just admitting that since they are now bogged down in two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq with Iran only within months or days of joining in the party) the event of a flare-up on the Korean penninsula or a catostrophic event such as another Katrina or what just happened in Haiti could lead to a reinstitution of the draft.

    Economy be damned there is still are severe shortage of man power in the armed forces. What I am reading here is a clandestine message saying the situation is desperate enough where unless it is a gay soldier that NO ONE can stand (not even other gay soldiers)just come in, sign on the dotted line and pick up that rifle and start shooting. We will even allow you a Ballys type shower atmosphere minus the steam room as long as you keep it in the shower area.

    Yes, my pretties, the situation in the armed forces IS just that bad. I have never understood why any gay person would want to join an organization who will promise you the world (free education, a loan for a home that you can not afford the mortgage and other blah, blah, blah…) and will balk at every chance on delivering when you go to collect.

    Oh, and one more thing too. Depending on where you are stationed, there is no eight hour day (many cases, due to the shortage, the days are more like 14 to 15 hours) but the pay WILL NOT CHANGE. Along with the fact the bullets being fired at you do not give one damn about your being gay either. And they are not colored pink either. Plus they KILL. Think people.

    Political cause be damned, cannon fodder is cannon fodder. I wonder if the situation got bad enough WHO would all of a sudden be picked for “point man”. That’s the person who is ahead of the squad, looking for the enemy to tell the rest to follow. He is also normally the one to “buy” it first because that is who has first contact in a shooting war with the enemy.

    Hope you all are listening to what you are asking to join. Think before you jump. The stories you hear about homeless vets and soldiers not making enough to pay bills whether in or out ARE true.

  • Sam

    @BrianNJ: DON’T STAY HOME! Not voting sends no message what-so-ever, since the majority of Americans already don’t vote in the midterms. In order for LGBT dissatisfaction to register with the Republocrats (or is that Demopublicans?), we have to lodge protest votes. If there’s a pro-gay third party candidate, vote for them. If not, write in someone! I’m planning to write in “Harvey Milk” for every race where there isn’t a Green or another pro-LGBT third party running (that is, IF the Dems don’t get ENDA passed…DADT would be nice, but it’s less my thing).

  • soul_erosion

    Geeez, what’s next? “Rain Fresh” body gel & moisturizing lotion dispensers for the gays, while the str8’s only get a bar of soap? (wouldn’t want the gays playing “drop the soap.”) Sort of reminds me of that old story of the government waste at NASA when they spent millions on developing an anti-gravity writing device when the Russians used a lead pencil. Utterly ridiculous.

  • Sam

    This is SO not surprising. Charles Moskos, the man who created the DADT policy for Clinton, later admitted that it had NOTHING to do with “unit cohesion” (the official explanation) and was actually about his own fear of being ogled in the showers.

    He said “I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay.” He also made up some crap that DADT was justified because straight soldiers had “modesty rights.”

    He must have been hung like a fruit fly. All the packing straight guys I know get a kick out of gay men checking out their junk in the locker room. Sayin’.

  • romeo

    I don’t know; I’m conflicted. I’m not against initial compromise, especially considering I’m well aware of the nature of the country of which I’m a citizen. I agree that most straight guys would not be that het up about being in the locker room with gay guys, but I also know that some straight guys from conservative backgrounds would go out of their way to make a big production becoming a constant round of bitching and filing complaints. So I’m inclined to think separate shower facilities might be one way to ease into our new reality. The prissy straight assholes will have nothing to complain about. It’s bullshit, but perhaps necessary for the gay people that want to serve. Actually, I would have preferred that situation in high school P.E..

    Let’s face it. We’ve made compromise after compromise to move forward. Considering how big a step this is, I’m not against compromise here either. It’s been my observation in life that when it comes to idealism, purists usually wind up with nothing. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

  • Sean

    Seriously Queerty, these auto-starting ads need to go. Do you want to annoy your readers?

  • Lance Rockland

    I think that’s a FAB idea.

    Where do I sign up? :-)

  • Robert, NYC

    Hmmmm, they want to bring back segregation? If they’re going to do that, then they’ll have to segregate us during armed combat. This whole idea is absurd aside from being very offensive. We’re good enough to serve while having to lie about and shed our blood for this fucking country, but not good enough to shower together? If this is implemented…..this will prove yet again, the Democrats are NOT for equality. I’ll remember them when November 2010 and beyond roll around. Stop giving to the DNC and the democrats until they get serious about our rights, no compromises, no cave-ins, no exceptions.

  • J. Clarence

    What a bunch of babies! No I take that back, even babies wouldn’t act this childish. Seriously, separate bathrooms? You train them to be able to shoot another person in the face, but the thought of another man looking at your penis is too much. This is hilarious.

    I love that so much of the military’s thinking on this issue rests on the assumption that gay people are sexual predators that would rip their heterosexual comrades to shreds, but at the same time gay soldiers are unfit to serve openly. It’s mind-shatteringly amazing.

    Maybe the higher ups have just watched too much Queer As Folk and think showers are gay people natural breeding grounds?

  • Dasher

    Didn’t President Truman desegregate the armed forces in the late 1940s? So now President Obama’s military hacks want to resegregate them based on your sexuality. What a leap forward.

    If the straight soldiers have cute butts like the guy in the photo above, they might have to worry about their straight buddies hitting on them, never mind the gays.

  • Robert, NYC

    If this is implemented and Obama goes along with it, and why not, he’s for segregating us with civil unions instead of marriage, then that’s the end of LGBT support for the Dems. He’s playing with fire if he accepts this. I’m done with compromise and done with funding them so they can discriminate against us.

  • Robert, NYC

    Dasher, actually there is an element of straight men who in a certain situation would rather have a fellow straight service them for the lack of women. To them it softens the stigma of the “gay” component, having another straight get it on with them. There are some straight men who even allow a gay or bi male service them, yet don’t reciprocate and maintain they are still straight after several encounters of this nature.

  • schlukitz

    No. 25 · Robert, NYC


  • Kyle, DC

    I’d like to point out that any concerns about stationing soldiers in nations where homosexuality is outlawed (i.e. Saudi Arabia) are completely bunk. Legally speaking, military bases abroad are still technically territory of the United States. This would be why John McCain could run for president despite having been born abroad — he was born on a military base.

  • FakeName

    Kyle, be that as it may, it’s rare that the entire staff of a military base is restricted to that base. Personnel are still going to be venturing into those countries and subject to those countries’ laws. It’s illgal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia. During the first Gulf War women could only drive in Saudi Arabia by decree of the Saudi king, and then only military vehicles and only while in uniform. The Saudi king literally declared that under Saudi law, “U.S. female military personnel in uniform are not women when driving military vehicles.” Absent a similar decree LGBT military personnel in Saudi or other countries where homosexuality is illegal would still potentially be at risk.

  • craig

    But the notion that separate shower and bathing facilities are needed, to keep the heteros at a safe distance from the homos, is an insult to the men and women keeping this country safe.

    I don’t really see room for complaint about this plan. Women and men have separate facilities because they are assumed straight and the idea of the other sex checking them out while naked causes discomfort and is deemed inappropriate (even though straight guys have seen titties before and straight women have seen dick before and it would be nice to assume no one would harass anyone else). That’s not considered an insult. We are fighting for service people to be able to throw off the assumption they are straight, which means the people who they are actually potentially attracted to are put in a position of feeling the same discomfort they’d have in a co-ed bathroom.

    WE are comfortable and used to sharing facilities with people we are potentially attracted to, that doesn’t mean straights are required to be comfortable with us doing so or that a command that would not permit co-ed showers has to be OK with it.

    The US has always been a puritanical country.

    I would like to know, though, if the troops have actually been surveyed about their level of comfort/discomfort about showering with people they know for sure are gay or if this is just commanders projecting their own views onto the troops.

  • jason

    Men of all sexualities have shared showers since time began. Why should it change now?

  • McShane

    While I’m all for taking showers with as many guys as possible; at the drop of a hat, wouldn;t it would give them reasurance if the gay men got to shower with the women.
    Then everyone might turn gay!

  • craig

    @ Jason

    In most societies men haven’t been able to be out as gay and accepted by the wider society, so I’m not sure it’s relevant what historic practice has been.

    Nowadays most gyms in America have individual showers not communal ones. Troops in the field won’t have that. At the gym if a straight guy isn’t comfortable with the knowledge there are gay guys in the locker room he also has the option of showering at home. Kids don’t normally shower after gym classes anymore at school either so they aren’t even used to the idea of communal showers with other straights.

  • Someone

    Actually, I’m not really bothered by this proposition. I mean, yes, it’s kind of silly that we’re concerned about adults’ ability to take a shower and move on with their lives…

    And yet, do you remember the torture of being harassed in the junior high locker room? That kind of behavior, sadly, is one that many people don’t outgrow. A switch from communal showers to individual showers could help protect gay servicemen from harassment.

  • Bradley

    I think there would be a massive surge in gays joining the military….Sign me up for that!

  • MickW

    Very good post Craig, you actually added something new and different to the conversation here.

  • Dasher

    @26 – Robert, NYC — Good point. Not all male-on-male sexual activity is instigated by gays. And the proposed segregation might even increase this type of activity on military posts.

  • jason


    I would think that if you’re out in the field of battle, sharing a shower with a gay man is the least of a straight guy’s worries.

  • dontblamemeivotedforhillary

    Is this Florida, 1972 and we are all black just wanting a drink from a water fountain?

  • AxelDC

    The vast majority of recruits are 18 years old. How many of them are fully aware of their sexuality? How many of them want to be branded as gay to their entire platoon from boot camp forward?

    How are they going to separate the showers? The whole point of DADT is letting gays serve in the military without harassment, not pinning pink triangles to their uniforms so they can be the object of ridicule and hazing. I’d guess that those gays-only showers are going to be pretty empty.

    The best solution is just to put in shower stalls so that all the guys and gals are have some privacy.

  • Air Force

    This is like a downgrade from DADT. No thanks.

  • The Duke

    @FakeName: you’re not very bright are you? to be able to claim that one would have to go through a long drawn out court process and even then, if they grant it to you, you’d be one lucky s.o.b… no. respectfully, i dub thee a dipshit. do ur research. if it got rough a prancing male would more than likely get off a lot quicker than one claiming to be a ‘conscientious objector’.. which im sure if you would’ve perhaps done the research before commenting, you would’ve seen that lots were denied their claim. in the ’70’s’.. as if 30 yrs was so totally long ago that u dare not even consider the possibility again.. im looking around at iraq, iran, russia, afghanistan, (and i mention russia because if iran gets froggy the u.s. will leap and russia being an islamic nation, u can most certainly assume that they’ll back their iranian friends up) china… and if you havent heard, the new story on the leak is that china and their ‘bubble’ will burst. idk about u but when the going gets tough, i look back to what happened the previous times. wwi – 1910 (approx), wwii – 1930, vietnam – 1960, gulf war – 1990, afghan/iraq war – 2001/2003 (the last three are just in there for kicks because they’re not really ‘big’ wars.) but yeah.. just wanted to share.. maybe some things to keep in mind.

    u seem to have a false idea that maybe everything is peaceful when iran and north korea are meddling around with nukes and the u.s. is perhaps more volatile than ever, but really, i suggest u turn ur tv off and do some reading. maybe you’ll piece things for urself and see that this is all a set up. it started with the marriage and now its this. tons of idiots are just going to voice out what they feel they ought to be voicing because of what they’ve been told. we’re better off as it is. i dont care about anyone saying that we oughta defend the country or the nation cuz really, the nation and the country is defending itself. not us. we’re being treated as leeches. separate showers (although as neat and accommodating as they sound) are a bit of a slap in the face. (although they do sound convenient as hell especially for cruising) but it just goes to show how uneducated and intolerant society is towards us. a draft isnt so absurd that it shouldnt be paid attention to. if it was, there wouldnt be a law requiring all males to sign up at the age of 18.

  • Steve

    @Lukas P.: “the Pentagon doesn’t readily bend over and comply at the POTUS’ command.”

    Actually, they do. The President is the Commander in Chief. He can issue orders, which they must follow.

    The issue here is not ‘when to repeal DADT’. The issue here is called “insubordination”, and perhaps “refusing to obey a direct Presidential Order”. Either of those is grounds for court martial. The second charge carries a death penalty, if I recall correctly.

  • Robert, NYC

    Craig, the U.S. military should study the situation in our western allies’ militaries. I’ve not heard of any reports that straight soldiers are affected by openly gay comrades showering with them. The fact of the matter is, under DADT, I haven’t heard of any sexual harassment cases against suspected gay soldiers. Moreover, I’ve heard more about sexual harassment against straight female soldiers who have separate shower facilities but who have been sexually abused out of the shower environment. If you don’t see anything wrong with segregating gay mens’ shower facilities, then you might as well ban women altogether to stop the abuse. This is more about military leaders’ personal hangups and homophobia. Many of them are right wing religious wackos. I’d love to see the effect it would have on their thinking if 60,000 gay servicemembers suddenly withdrew from service as a protest against DADT. I don’t think showering with straight men would be the first and foremost concern on the minds of their commanders or the president for that matter. This obsession with our sexuality by these people is also rather suspect. It doesn’t happen in countries where we’re allowed to serve openly and proudly and showering together is hardly an issue. This is nothing more than homophobia no matter how you skew it.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    They act as though gays have no control over their urges. It’s so offensive. What’s next? Military issued soap on a rope? Separate showers is wrong because it hurts unification of the troops. The straight men will soon see that the gay men pose no issues for them and unification will be stronger. Separating gays is so, so wrong, especially in the military. Get over yourselves!

  • Brian NJ

    I was deeply shocked at the reporting on Americablog that the Administration has not even contemplated a repeal of DADT, and that there was no plan for a repeal whatsoever!!!!!!

    It was just amazing to learn that all the assurances to the gay community that a plan was in place were lies! You would think at a minimum, the White House would not have lied. I didn’t think it was THAT bad. I voted for Obama because I thought he had some character. I was just incorrect about that.

    And no – what is clearly needed is a vote of no confidence from the gay community in 2010. We have been fucked over – 100 percent.

  • Observer1000

    Has it ever dawned on anyone that the Pentagon leaked the separate but equal nonsense to show internally that full repeal of DADT is coming and the only way to go. At the end of the day they are just going to do whatever was done in Canada and be done with it. Same for all other gay issues. The only question is when

  • Observer1000

    Oh and the longer the Dems wait to pass gay rights laws the longer they hand the Repugs a wedge issue to push them over the top in close elections. You would have thought the genius Rahm Emanuel would have figured that out by know.

  • FakeName

    @The Douche, I men, Duke: Telling me you think I’m not very bright really means nothing, considering that it’s coming from someone who either can’t or refuses to construct a single articulate sentence. See sweetie, if you want to have any shot at being taken seriously in the slightest, following basic rules of style and grammar (capital letters, periods at the ends of sentences instead of ellipses, constructing sentences with actual subjects and predicates, you know, the little things) would be a good way to start. Now if you’d like to take that steaming pile of goo that you posted above and try to wrestle it into something that is both readable and coherent, I’d be happy to respond to it. Or you could pull your dildo out of your twat and beat yourself to death with it and that’d be good too.

  • Robert, NYC

    Observer1000, Rahm Emmanuel is NOT a friend of the gay community or a supporter of full equality either. Obama knew that when he picked him for his chief of staff. He’s an orthodox jew too, speaks volumes. A bad choice by Obama but not surprising if you look at how he kowtows to religious extremists, respecting their beliefs more than he does our full equality. Religious beliefs always trump our rights in this country. No politician has the guts to go after them.

  • Observer1000

    Robert, NYC, you miss my point and my sarcasm. If Rahm Emanuel, is such a genius as everyone in the Washington elite seems to think he is, you would have thought she’d have figured out by now that the dems should just pass gay rights laws and move on. Instead, she’s been falling for the same old Karl Rove tactics by protesting too much on teh gay and handing the repugs a wedge issue in election after election after election.

    In every other developed country, when the lefties get into power they pass gay rights laws, the so-called religious scream and then life goes on. By 2 election cycles the issue is not even brought up.

    But, in America, this lady’s been protesting since Clinton was elected and pushing this center-right nation nonsense and all we’ve got from it is gridlock, Gingrich and Bush.

    And if he really is an Orthodox Jew, which I doubt he really is, I suggest he re-learn the lessons of the Holocaust.

  • McShane

    I don’t know really why we bother with the question about gays in the military since teh U.s. hasn’t engaged in a legitimate engagement since WW2 . According to Gore Vidal, who was a notable and cautious historian, we have fought in 200 preemtory, non-defemnsive manuvers since then. The Wolfowitz Doctrine which calls for world domination by the U.S. military has been in effect for over 20 years-it’s most exacting expression was/is Iraq: which was just an excuss for private industry to cash in on taxpayer money , rebuilding and helping destroy , a country for trumped up reasons, when the dictator,Sadam, who we blamed was our implant in the first place.

    I don’t see why gay people should be subjected to martyrdom for a cause which has no more than a commercial value to Corporations, and which murders, tortures etc.tens of thousands of innocent citizens.

    Concientious gay people need to be concerned about the unecessary waste of 600 billion dollars a year on completely unjustified wars and not on makingg this country a respectable place for everyone to live. Minorities like us suffer the most, in the long run. when ther is a lack of education and proper governance.

    What if even half of that money had been spent on AIDs research? It would be long gone.

  • Robert, NYC

    Observer1000, I for one have never thought Emmanuel were a genius, some in the democratic party might think that including Obama. As for his jewish orthodoxy, I’m only quoting what I heard in a documentary last year. Both he and his brother are apparently. As for jewish orthodoxy, some in that community have called for our annihilation, so I doubt if the holocaust would resonate with them in this context. Some are even offended when we mention that 15,000 gay men also perished in the death camps as if it diminishes the gravity of the holocaust itself.

    We don’t have a left-wing party in this country unlike in Europe and elsewhere. The democrats have moved center, slightly to the right over the past twenty years or more. Until that returns, expect no change from them, certainly not under the current administration or probably not the next.

  • Observer1000

    If the Yeshiva bochers are stupid enough to think that their Christian allies won’t pull the same stuff on them once they’ve finished with the gays then I suggest they read the New Testament.

  • Dasher

    The young people today, in the 18-22 year old age group, that makes up most of the U.S. armed services, are much more open-minded about gays than people in my generation. These young guys are surprisingly tolerant of gays, and just don’t see them as a big deal to be afraid of. Most just wouldn’t have a problem showering with gays, even if a gay guy looked at his dick.

    The problem is the military commanders, who are mostly homophobic right wing religious wackos.

  • ErikG

    I think this is a rediculous waste of resources, money etc. Gay men have seen dick before and so have straight men. What’s the big friggin’ deal? I’m only 18 years old but even I can see the immaturity of this situation.

  • DoodleNoodle

    IF they separate the gays and straights, there gonna be some pretty upset “str8” men!

  • reason

    People are going to say some nasty things during these hearings, so there is no point in raising your blood pressure holding on to every single word. If you think the health care debate was nasty just you wait: some people do not want gays serving in the military and will do or say anything to stop them. The republicans, knowing that the tide is against them are going to try to turn this into a negotiation; they will try to add separate but equal or something similarly insulting that will take another two decades to get rid of. Loosing the pro-gay #60 in Massachusetts will make a negotiated solution nearly imminent.

    The military brass is old school, and is aware that the military has its own set of laws separate from the population that can be held up as invested by section 8 article I of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately some of the best military minds that we have are going to be on the wrong side of history, but these guys sure can delay the inevitable. When you talk to the military about DADT they always bring up unit cohesion, but which unit are they talking about? Could it be the cohesion of the upper echelons of the military structure? Do the leaders not want to lead gay soldiers or make command decisions with gay leaders? If the problem is indeed with the military brass it will have serious implications on the DADT outcome especially when we are in the middle of concurrent wars. As it turns out this would make it a constitutionally protected law and the safety and security of the United States vs. morality. Rereading that it seems like an argument for delayed action (I am for immediate repeal): is constitutionally protected law/safety and security of the United States vs. morality a false choice? Can you make a freestanding argument why the breakdown of unit cohesion in the upper echelons of the military brass will not impact military readiness?

  • Jason

    Sadly I suspect the DADT wont be repealed this year as its election year and they are worried at what the hetros will think. And the only reason they are having a committee meeting is to make it look like they are doing something for our sake.

  • Brian NJ

    This post, the americablog post, and other have been doing some real journalism, and it shows that what is going on with the Pentagon leaks is political – not a real debate, but a delay tactic. In other words, it is an assist to the White House, probably to help Rahm Emanuel buy time, not about showers at all.

    The political purpose is to get US to accept more delay, so the White House can focus on other things it wants to go ahead in line, like civil rights for illegals. The SHOCK is that is clear the White House had no plan to repeal DADT, and in a secret meeting at the White House, Gay Inc. didn’t even meet with the president. So Obama has BLOWN OFF DADT. THERE IS NO REAL SHOWERS DEBATE.

  • Robert, NYC

    Reason, #57….cohesion? Haven’t they looked at the military in Israel, the UK, Canada where we’re allowed to serve openly for a number of years? Cohesion doesn’t even on the radar as an issue. This is nothing more than delay, a GOP ploy they’ve adopted to avoid dealing with it. Expect NOTHING from this administration except excuses…..ergo, economy, wars, health care, homeland security, the usual bullshit. If it weren’t for that, they’d come up with something else. They need to be reminded that when November 2010 and beyond roll around. They’ll get “zip” from us even the ones who do support us. I’m sick of it and them.

  • Brian NJ

    The showers nonsense is Rahm Emanuel’s attempt to help Democrats have one more excuse to keep the gays voting for them in 2010 when they fail to deliver the goods.

    It is just to buy time, and there is no real difference between the White House position and the Pentagon’s. Here is their position: there is NO POSITION, because there was NO PLAN, which means they never seriously discussed the issue. When we were told there was a plan to repeal DADT we were LIED TO.

    I think 2010 is the election cycle where gays have to stop being white noise for the Democratic Party, and start letting them feel our vote. Our vote also includes our voting influence, which means all the people we talk to to support the party. After being defrauded like that, I will not let the Democrats serve with my assistance. And I was a lifelong Democrat.

  • Robert, NYC

    Brian, NJ, you’re right. I advocate telling the Dems right now that our votes are no longer theirs to take for granted every election year. That message needs to get out now, loud and clear. I’ve not always been a democrat, a Green mostly. This year, I may not be giving any democrat another vote until they deliver something substantial without delay after delay. This shower nonsense is just a distraction and as Jason # 58 says, this committee meeting is just window dressing to give the impression they’re doing something. Its one of the oldest delay tactics in politics. They’ve learned their lesson well from their colleagues in the GOP. This is a center right party we’ve been supporting all these years and its time that stopped. The real democrats are Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold and the late great Ted Kennedy. There are none that can match them in word or deed. Both opposed the wars outright, both were against DADT, DOMA before any others were, both support universal health care, and both are avid supporters of marriage equality. They are the type of politician who should be leading the Democrats and who aren’t afraid to take on the scum in the GOP. Alan Grayson is another one to watch, up there with Dennis and Russ.

  • Sexy Rexy

    Why post a pic of a naked body half-hidden behind a locker door? This is a serious issue.

  • romeo

    Regarding this issue, we should remind ourselves that gays have always served in the military, and the military has always been aware of it. Since DADT, we have served in the military with the military’s blessing provided we did not reveal our orientation. By not revealing our orientation, we have served in all functions, including showering with straights. Generally, straights have gone about the business of soldiering knowing that some of the other guys in their units were probably gay. And it’s been no big whoop. There have been no particular problems with unit cohesion under these circumstances. Military brass can only stretch their arguments so far until it all breaks down in the general hilarity of the hypocrisy.

    Gays in the military is a fait accompli. The military should just deal with it.

  • stunatra

    @Kyle, DC: McCain’s parents were both citizens, so that made him eligible for President.

  • Dasher

    The issue of equal rights for gays in the military is not as important as amnesty for illegal aliens, and will have to be sidetracked so people who have no legal right to be in this country can advance at the expense of the people who do (but are gay).

  • dontblamemeivotedforhillary

    “Homosexuality has been around as long as air.” Whoopi Goldberg

  • schlukitz

    No. 66 · Dasher

    The issue of equal rights for gays in the military is not as important as amnesty for illegal aliens, and will have to be sidetracked so people who have no legal right to be in this country can advance at the expense of the people who do (but are gay).

    I have often said the exact same thing.

    Unfortunately, wherever I said it, I got called a racist by self-hating gays who evidently feel that the rest of us are not entitled to equality in the military, as well as in our personal lives.

    The real truth, however, is that whenever the “rights” of others, in this case, illegal aliens who broke the law, are put ahead of taxpaying citizens who were born on American soil, we have a travesty of justice.

    And when that is allowed to happen, we can kiss our rights (and equality), goodbye.

    In plain words, it’s called being fucked-over.

  • Dasher

    Schlukitz, you are not a racist. You are someone who has balls enough to tell the truth. We’re going to need people like you to protect us in the near future. You can see it coming, like a wave coming in from the ocean. The only thing we really have to fear is the people who would sell us out, or the people who are afraid of the truth.

  • Brittany Wollman Love

    How absurd. How insecure do you have to be to in your masculinity to find the idea of showering with gay men threatening?

  • James S. Klich II

    All military personal should be treated the same, straight or gay. If the person wants to be out, then the laws need to be changed.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    We ought to pick a week and mail all of our Obama tee shirts to the White House. The piles of Obama shirts need to be trucked to the shelters, they might start to get the idea.

  • jason

    If straight guys are afraid of gay guys in the shower, they must be the biggest wusses in America.

  • terrwill

    @schlukitz: 100% agree. Once again the Gays are the only accepted group who can be bitch slapped with impunity. The whole bs argument that the military has used for decades is that Gays in the military would “ruin the cohesivness” of the unit. Having a separate stall will acomplish nothing but encourage more divsion in the ranks.

    PS, you notice we are “disease free” in the posts recently? It seems that the vermin who inhabited these threads got ascared when he realized there was an FBI investigation into his antics……..

  • Robert, NYC

    Terrwill, the vermin you are referring to, if he’s serious about issuing a subpoena, would desist from posting here on advice from his lawyer. So far, Queerty has not mentioned any legal action being taken against it in order to force it to provide the identity of the accused. The “vermin” is still around though, I’ve seen him on other posts. So it would seem his threat is bogus. Further, he claimed that his so called “wife” and employer are fully aware that he frequents gay blogsites. I doubt if that is true. If his legal action were genuine, I doubt if he’d want “wifey” to find out let alone his employer for fear of outing himself. You have to ask yourself, seriously, what well-adjusted straight male bother spewing this nonsense on a gay blogsite anyway? Makes no sense.

  • schlukitz

    No. 73 · 1EqualityUSA

    We ought to pick a week and mail all of our Obama tee shirts to the White House. The piles of Obama shirts need to be trucked to the shelters, they might start to get the idea.

    What an excellent suggestion.

  • schlukitz

    No. 75 · terrwill

    PS, you notice we are “disease free” in the posts recently?

    Yeah. Nice, isn’t it?

    A joy to be able to post on here once again without all of the foul-mouthed slurs and sick, anti-faggot diatribes.

  • schlukitz

    No. 76 · Robert, NYC

    You’re absolutely right. Makes no sense at all.

    Anyway, good riddance to bad rubbish, as they used to say. :)

  • Robert, NYC

    Schlukitz…..”it” will be back, rest assured. Sometimes these low lives re-emerge under a different alias. Anyone in litigation would be strongly advised to cease and desist from coming here and to keep their mouth shut. Make no mistake, no subpoena has been issued against Queerty. Just enjoy the temporary hiatus from its desperate, delusional rants.

  • Merags

    Is this a joke? Like seriously? Separate shower/lockerrooms is stigmatizing in itself because your labelling yourself by going in them, therefore, it is still don’t ask don’t tell because under these circumstances I doubt many will ‘come out.’

    Like in Canada, we’ve had gay marriage since 2003 (Ontario) and nationwide since 2005. As of 1992, lesbians, gays and bisexuals were allowed to openly serve in the military.

    Basically, Canadians don’t care, I can’t wrap my head why gay marriage/gays in the military is such a big deal for so many Americans. :S

  • Robert, NYC

    Merags, the simple anwser to the last sentence of your post is…”religion”. Its at the root of all the hatred and discrimination. Unfortunately, they outnumber us and have the ear of politicians a lot better than we do. They use religion to lay guilt on them, issue threats and the dumb political careerists who fall for it hook, line and sinker every election year. Just look at what Obama did, once for marriage equality and now for legal segregation in the form of civil unions. He’s learned nothing from the racist history of his own country.

    In America, no candidate can expect to get elected unless he or she declares a religious belief system unlike most other western societies. That’s why Canada managed to get equality a lot faster than we ever will. Even the UK has managed to get far more than we have, then of course there are the other progressive countries, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden and South Africa, Mexico City, Buenos Aires. I don’t see it happening here, the country is too politically divided and religion plays an important part. Separate that, and we might get somewhere, but I doubt it. The political will just isn’t there.

  • schlukitz

    You are reading my mind again, Robert, NYC. lol

    I was going to respond to Merags last sentence of his post as well, but you and I are on the exact same page here and you beat me to the punch in responding to him.

    Not only do I not hold out much hope of seeing same-sex marriage become a reality in my lifetime, I am also fearful about the intensification of violence against the LGBT community that is taking place, not only in places like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Communist Block Nations, Uganda and Malawi, but right here in River City, USA.

    The fact that our very own President, who enjoys sitting in the Oval Office with the extensive assistance of the LGBT movement to back him, sends a very powerful negative message out to the masses when he states that he “believes” that marriage is between one man and one woman.

    When did the “belief” of any one individual, President, Senator, Congressman, whatever, become a solid, democratic and fair basis upon which to deny and strip the rights of a minority group away, which seems to be happening on an almost daily basis here in America?

    It is a sad fact when so many of our own are posting on Queerty, Towelroad and other gay sites, that we must grovel and beg at the booted feet of our oppressors, simply to gain the rights that were guaranteed to us in the Constitution, but are blithely being ignored by our politicians who, as you so rightly say, are pandering to the anti-gay smear campaigns launched and paid for by the religious haters.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Well said, Schlukitz.

  • RIck

    Good post.

    As a service member, I am so frigg’n tired of all the hype surrounding open service by gays. We’ve been there forever, and recognizing it isn’t gonna change a thing. All of the current regulations and policies regarding harassment and fraternization will remain in place and soldiers; gay or str8, must abide by them.

    Life the ban already. Grow up America…

  • david

    This issue is so stupid. DADT is a childish law passed by a bunch of children. There has always been out homosexuals in the military. No one cares.

  • crystal.glass


    David, yes people in the military do. Straight women catching the bad end of it. Several Naval Lieutenant men serving under a poorly-behaved lesbian have quit the military altogether.

    Why are homosexuals upset about heterosexuals not wanting to share personal space with them? Leave heterosexuals alone for once.

  • Robert, NYC

    No. 88, you’re at total idiot. None of us are upset about wanting heterosexuals to share space with us, its not even part of the equation. The rest of the civilized world allows us to serve openly and there’s NEVER been any impact on morale or cohesion. Our closest military ally, the UK actually encourages its gay men and women to serve, its military itself recruits. Many are serving alongside our military in Iraq and Afghanistan, not one complaint about sexual misconduct. Thousands of gay men and women have put their lives on the line for assholes like you, ungrateful ignorant bastard.

    Have another drink of haterade, your days are numbered. Get over it and grow up. There are other people in the world besides you.

  • Robert, NYC

    # 84, Schlukitz, totally agree with you.

  • McShane

    Whether separate showers in schools or in the marines or whatever,the whole sensability stikes me as indicating a degree of priudishness which defies any common sense, and infuriates me.
    Next we’ll all be wearing chastety belts and bedraped in veils.
    America has grown insane. As if there weren’t much more important things to worry about. These heterosexuals are sissys if they can’t deal with having been looked at by7 gays yet by each other which hapens of course all the time.

  • schlukitz

    No. 88 · crystal.glass

    Shouldn’t you be pushing your baby stroller at Disney World or something like that instead of trolling a gay website?

  • catch1095

    Yeah, they should definitely have the option of heterosexual only showers, and the other can be for homosexuals and those who don’t mind showering with them.

    Homosexual men may not understand why heterosexuals men don’t want to shower with them, but it’s similar to why most women don’t want to shower in view of men – except it can be worse. Women don’t find the idea of being involved with and touched by a man repulsive as many heterosexual men do.

  • schlukitz

    No. 91 · McShane

    Next we’ll all be wearing chastety belts

    Bite your tongue, McShane, it’s already happening.

    Do a Google on male chastity and you will be absolutely amazed at the number of men, straight ones at that, who get into being locked up in chastity belts by their wives, mistresses or dominatrixs’ It’s called a Power Exchange and, if heterosexuals get into that, I am fine with it.

    When one stops to consider some of the unusual/bizarre sexual trips that heterosexuals get-off on (and I speak from experience because I am in the business), it makes it all that much more difficult to understand why so many heteros (mostly the religious kooks) get so uptight about what two men or two women do in bed.

    Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. ;P

  • Adam

    I’m sorry, but comparing this to racial separation is insane. The fact is allowing gay men to shower with the straight men would be the same as allowing the straight men to shower with the women. Sexuality is something personal, but that doesn’t mean that your sexuality should be allowed to infringe on the privacy of others. So they need to either have separate showers or one big communal shower for everyone.

Comments are closed.