Don't ask, don't post your pictures on a homosexual website.

January 30, 2006 2:03 PM

Army officials are investigating allegations that as many as seven members of the 82nd Airborne Division appeared on a gay pornography web site. Authorities at Fort Bragg have begun an inquiry into whether the paratroopers' actions violated the military conduct code. Although the site in question has apparently now been removed, the issue has once again highlighted the military's unofficial policy of "Don't ask, don't tell." Does this incident show that it is now finally time to drop this discriminatory policy, thus finally allowing homesexual officers to serve their country without having to stay in the closet? Or is there a legitimate need for this policy to remain in use in the armed forces?
posted by Effigy2000 (78 comments total)

I like the mental loops the government jumps through to ensure that posing nude for money indicates someone's sexual orientation, especially given how poorly Bush pays the military. We are losing the war in Iraq because of these flaming photosexuals.
posted by Rothko at 2:09 PM on January 30, 2006

I don't want to be in no jungle shooting at no commies or some desert shooting at no terrorists having to worry about a bunch of queers trying to look at my penis.
posted by billysumday at 2:13 PM on January 30, 2006

Yes, one can face IED, kids loaded with bombs, traps , assasination but HELL NO nobody can fantasize sucking one dick assaulting some anus without the owner running away scared like the sissy he is.
posted by elpapacito at 2:16 PM on January 30, 2006

Damn right billysumday, if you got your balls shot off they might steal them and keep them for later use in wiccan homosexual rituals. You never can tell.

Seriously - has the military heard of the Spartans at all? I mean, they were obviously such pussies what with their rampant gayness. They didn't have one of the toughest, most formidable training systems ever or anything.
posted by longbaugh at 2:20 PM on January 30, 2006

Real men battle naked.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:22 PM on January 30, 2006

homesexuals, you say?

Now I'm just curious if you were going for 'homosexuals' or 'homersexuals'
posted by Josh Zhixel at 2:23 PM on January 30, 2006

This may seem like an obvious duh-type question, but I genuinely don't know the answer: is there anything in the armed forces regulations that prohibits female active soldiers from appearing in pornographic publications?
posted by Pontius Pilate at 2:23 PM on January 30, 2006

Time to drop the policy? Come on!!! Its time for a full-on scorched-earth purge! Hasn't our rousing success with abstinence-only sex education taught you anything?
posted by hwestiii at 2:24 PM on January 30, 2006

"homeesexuals, you say?

Now I'm just curious if you were going for 'homosexuals' or 'homersexuals'"
posted by Josh Zhixel at 8:23 AM AEST on January 31

Yeah, I just noticed that myself and yes, it was meant to be 'homosexuals'. If an admin cares enough to fix my typo, I wouldn't mind at all.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:26 PM on January 30, 2006

Did the web site in question feature actual depictions of "homosexual activity", or were the pictures simply nudes? Seems like it would make a big difference as to whether or not "don't ask, don't tell" could be invoked in this case. The details in the articles provided are pretty minimal....
posted by mr_roboto at 2:34 PM on January 30, 2006

Sadly, the discharge policy {no pun intended} has damaged morale and put troops in harm's way.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 2:37 PM on January 30, 2006

Wasn't that cleric at Guantanamo booted because he downloaded porn? I'm guessing if downloading any type of porn whatsoever is against the rules, so's posing. Ergo, the military isn't discriminating against gays so much as anyone who gets their jollies in some way other than raping detainees.
posted by fuerloins at 2:41 PM on January 30, 2006

I did some more reading and according to the Wikipedia article on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policv has actually seen more people discharded from the service since its introduction than before. Interesting.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:43 PM on January 30, 2006

And that should ready policy, not "policv." Man, my typing sucks today.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:45 PM on January 30, 2006

The legitimate need stems from the attitudes of a substantial portion of the military, I suppose. Clinton tried to integrate gays into the military, and the military brass fought him tooth and nail on it. Regardless of the morality, it's probably still true that openly gay men in the military would be bad for troop morale and enlistment numbers, and, if that's the case, is it better to force change through and have our military take a hit in the short-term, or wait for their attitudes to catch up? I'm not sure what the answer is, honestly.
posted by TunnelArmr at 2:50 PM on January 30, 2006

“Seems like it would make a big difference as to whether or not "don't ask, don't tell" could be invoked in this case...”

True. But “conduct unbecoming” is a pretty big catch all. (If they were officers)
That’d be what this is. Whether they are gay or not. Doesn’t really matter.
But yeah, the sexual orientation thing is dumb. It’ll take a while, but it should change.

Either way I guess they won’t be yelling “funky chicken” at the 101st for a while.

/off topic - I’d take almost any special forces squad against a squad of the Spartans best any time.
(not because of the homosexuality - American troops think laterally and we’re volunteers. I’d grant the viciousness, but there’s no subtitute for adaptability in fluid situations. That and it’s been a few thousand years, we know a LOT more about tactics.)
posted by Smedleyman at 2:53 PM on January 30, 2006

Still waiting for someone to complain about the lack of a NSFW tag after the obviously NSFW link "to a gay pornography web site."

Think of the childrens.
posted by three blind mice at 2:55 PM on January 30, 2006

If you are an active member of the military and you show in a Girls Gone Wild DVD doing heterosexual things, is that grounds for removal?
posted by mathowie at 2:56 PM on January 30, 2006

Think of the childrens.

Think of their jobs.
posted by lodurr at 3:00 PM on January 30, 2006

Extension on the two variations on this question asked so far: Wouldn't it be "conduct unbecoming" to appear in porn, anyway, regardless of teh sexual orientation implied?
posted by lodurr at 3:01 PM on January 30, 2006

lodurr: why should it ?
posted by elpapacito at 3:15 PM on January 30, 2006

There's no NSFW tag on that link because it's SFW.
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:15 PM on January 30, 2006

Packin' chutes!
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:27 PM on January 30, 2006

elpapacito writes "lodurr: why should it ?"

Because it's indecorous and indecent? Visiting a prostitute (or engaging in prostitution) and commiting adultery are similar acts that fall under the "conduct unbecoming" offense. Here's a list of some of the "predefined offenses" for conduct unbecoming an officer under the UCMJ; this is not an exclusive list. Hell, indecent exposure is in there...
posted by mr_roboto at 3:31 PM on January 30, 2006

If they don't want the boys to be in porn, they should not turn them into Twinks.
posted by thirteen at 3:32 PM on January 30, 2006

Achilles, the baddest motherfucker evar to fight in a war, was very very gay
posted by matteo at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2006

The defense-- we only mounted the site to buy body armor. Aren't there more important things for the army to worry about?

BTW-- the site is still up, though perhaps the pictures of the marines were taken down.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:37 PM on January 30, 2006

But it's not porn if the soldier's posing next to a naked Iraqi, right?
posted by nromanek at 4:00 PM on January 30, 2006

But it's not porn if the soldier's posing next to a naked Iraqi, right?

No, but you can trade that in for porn. That's okay.
posted by Rothko at 4:06 PM on January 30, 2006

"Achilles, the baddest motherfucker evar to fight in a war, was very very gay"

Bradd Pitt is gay!?!?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:10 PM on January 30, 2006

I find it hilarious to hear US government officials talk about the need for Middle-Eastern language experts in one breath, then dismisses a bunch of Arabic experts because they're gay.

It's almost like the Administration wants the War on Terrah to fail or something.
posted by clevershark at 4:26 PM on January 30, 2006

mr_roboto, I'm somewhat, erm, familiar with the ...erm, matierial produced by that, er, webiste/production company. Some of their actors/models/guys only do solo but a lot of them do/did more. A lot more.

The prevailing opinon seems to be that this particular site was singled out because it's one of the few, if not the only, sites whose, erm, models actually look like (and probably are) active members.

fleshbot has also been following the story, and were the first to work out which site it was, IIRC. towleroad also has coverage.
posted by geckoinpdx at 4:35 PM on January 30, 2006

webiste? website. website.
posted by geckoinpdx at 4:37 PM on January 30, 2006

as many as seven members of the 82nd Airborne Division appeared on a gay pornography web site

'Nuf said.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:51 PM on January 30, 2006

Mroboto: well at least you were so kind to produce a list of articles of code that an officier must subscribe to..that's a good answer to my question.

Except that I didn't intend to ask for a code the guy is in violation of ..rather for the reason behind the need to punish him for that behavior.
posted by elpapacito at 4:52 PM on January 30, 2006

This'll be interesting with that whole stop loss crap they just forced on 50,000 troops. Hey, want out of the war? Just tell'em you're Teh Gay and they'll ship you right on home.

Next thing they'll try to do is make each departing soldier enlist two more to take his place or they can't go home.
posted by fenriq at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2006

This'll be interesting with that whole stop loss crap they just forced on 50,000 troops. Hey, want out of the war? Just tell'em you're Teh Gay and they'll ship you right on home.

Exactly! I was thinking Corporal Klinger would be all over this.
posted by letitrain at 5:19 PM on January 30, 2006

What about Alexander the Great, conqueror of most of the known world, who wept when he realized there was nothing left to take over? He was, y'know, that way, too.
posted by John of Michigan at 5:41 PM on January 30, 2006

mathowie, yea, that's right. Gay, straight, whatever. Porn is porn. Anything that defames the military, no matter whether on or off duty is grounds for serious punishment.

Keep in mind that the 82nd is high-profile. If they were a bunch of swabbies working the engine room of some supply ship we'd never hear about it.

I wasn't in the 82nd but I did serve with them at Ft. Bragg. They turn a blind eye to lots of things because the stress level is so high. But apparently this isn't a typical case of getting drunk and rowdy because they have been working for 40 hours straight with little or no sleep.
posted by snsranch at 5:42 PM on January 30, 2006

As many as seven members of the 82nd posed on a website. Big deal. (really, i was there, it's nothing that looks particularly authentic).

Who, may I ask, noticed? Somebody who wasn't askin' and wasn't tellin', but who was doin' a whole lotta lookin'.

I think they could find better things (or at least better models) to worry about.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:43 PM on January 30, 2006

This is pretty un-PC, but I find it hard not to believe openly gay soldiers serving in the military is not bad for morale.

I'm not passing judgement on homosexuality or homosexuals as people, I'm just saying the typical 18-22 male army dude doesn't want to be around gays. Maybe a respectible percentage of the guys would accept it, but the very vocal and active minority would prevail. Not many straight soldiers would stand up for the gay ones, for fear of being labeled gay themselves.
posted by b_thinky at 5:44 PM on January 30, 2006

“This is pretty un-PC, but I find it hard not to believe openly gay soldiers serving in the military is not bad for morale.”

Matter of attitude. Black soldiers used to be bad for morale. Think you’d like to be a Cpl. out in 1930s society calling black men ‘boy’ and suddenly you have a black Sgt?

Work on changing the culture for 20 or so years, get a few generations past it and the morale problem goes away. Joe Guy the fag becomes just Joe Guy.

After that the only issue is boarding / birthing and fairness.
But that’s always been a problem (f’rinstance lots of married guys don’t get inspected - bugged me. I get it if you have kids, but still...)
posted by Smedleyman at 6:01 PM on January 30, 2006

This is pretty un-PC, but I find it hard not to believe openly gay soldiers serving in the military is not bad for morale.

I'm not passing judgement on homosexuality or homosexuals as people, I'm just saying the typical 18-22 male army dude doesn't want to be around gays. Maybe a respectable percentage of the guys would accept it, but the very vocal and active minority would prevail. Not many straight soldiers would stand up for the gay ones, for fear of being labeled gay themselves.

Yeah, because that whole thing with the blacks in the military really showed how long and deep these morale problems go.

Oh, and the whole letting the women in thing also. That was such a giant unbelievable fuck-up also.

It's the same ole story, again and again. Some people believe nothing can ever change, even though it's always constantly changing.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 6:02 PM on January 30, 2006

Jinxs Smedleyman!!!
posted by PissOnYourParade at 6:02 PM on January 30, 2006

*mmmphrmmmgmmphmm*
posted by Smedleyman at 6:09 PM on January 30, 2006

Jeff Gannon weeps.
posted by bardic at 6:11 PM on January 30, 2006

The only thing that pisses me off is that when I was a young recruit, I had a gay sarge who tried to slip me the pickle in exchange for a quick promotion. I told him I'd bash his fuckin' skull in. He backed off and I still got the promo.

A year later he was convicted of raping/coercing another young soldier. It was bad, the kid had to be hospitalized etc. When the command came around asking questions I happily wrote a three page report about the fucker. THAT is why GAY doesn't work, but I agree that he was just one bad apple.
posted by snsranch at 6:16 PM on January 30, 2006

I find it hard not to believe openly gay soldiers serving in the military is not bad for morale


I'm not passing judgement on morality,
I'm passing judgement on poor grammar.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:17 PM on January 30, 2006

"I'm not passing judgement on blackness or blacks as people, I'm just saying the typical 18-22 male army dude doesn't want to be around blacks. Maybe a respectible percentage of the guys would accept it, but the very vocal and active minority would prevail. Not many white soldiers would stand up for the black ones, for fear of being labeled black-lovers themselves."
posted by nkyad at 6:20 PM on January 30, 2006

snsranch writes "A year later he was convicted of raping/coercing another young soldier. It was bad, the kid had to be hospitalized etc. When the command came around asking questions I happily wrote a three page report about the fucker. THAT is why GAY doesn't work, but I agree that he was just one bad apple."

Are you saying that only homosexuals commit rape? Or that only homosexuals abuse authority in requesting sexual favors from subordinates?

'Cause if you are, you're wrong.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:28 PM on January 30, 2006

"Homosexuality takes the dignity out of killing."

-"Rep. Richard Martin (R-Ohio)"
posted by stenseng at 6:29 PM on January 30, 2006

There was another time when pretty much everyone in the barracks was totally drunk and some guy decided to come out of the closet and started running around naked with only a pair of pantyhose on. That was fine for a big-gay-laugh until he ran down the hall with my half-gallon of tequila.

We beat his ass a bit and put him to bed. We weren't really sure he was gay or bi until we met his "girlfriend", a 6'2" black-man ts/tv or something. We still didn't care as long as he kept his dick and his panty-hose to his friggin self.

Wanna hear more? I have TONS of big-gay-army tales. The army is full of 'em.
posted by snsranch at 6:31 PM on January 30, 2006

mr_roboto, I did mention that he was just one bad apple, as in he doesn't actually represent gayhood in it's entirety (sp).
posted by snsranch at 6:33 PM on January 30, 2006

I'm not passing judgement on homosexuality or homosexuals as people, I'm just saying the typical 18-22 male army dude doesn't want to be around gays.

24 countries, including Great Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and Israel, allow gay men and women to serve openly and there has been no reported breakdown in morale or command structure in those forces.

A study of gays and lesbians in the Australian military was conducted by the University of California. Among its findings:

"...the study...found that the Australian Defence Force's decision to lift the ban on openly gay and lesbian soldiers had not caused a decline in military performance.

On the contrary, the study said gay soldiers, officers and commanders had successfully served recently in East Timor and reported an improved working environment under uniform rules of conduct for all personnel.

The study said recruitment and retention rates had not suffered as a result of the policy change and what harassment was continuing related more to women soldiers than gay personnel.

...Assistant Professor Aaron Belkin said the Australian findings were in keeping with research into gays and lesbians in the Canadian and Israeli forces.

'When lifting the ban was under discussion in 1992, ADF service chiefs argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would jeopardise recruitment, troop cohesion and combat effectiveness while spreading AIDS and encouraging predatory behavior,' Professor Belkin said. 'Well that hasn't happened in Australia.'" [source]

And, recently, it appears that U.S. soldiers have no problem fighting alongside openly gay British soldiers in Iraq.

"In the 2003 Iraqi War, British units, containing openly gay men and lesbians, often fought in joint operations with United States military. There is no evidence that serving with openly gay men and lesbians in any way adversely affected the performance of the American troops."[source]

I don't want to be in no jungle shooting at no commies or some desert shooting at no terrorists having to worry about a bunch of queers trying to look at my penis.

Don't flatter yourself.
posted by ericb at 6:44 PM on January 30, 2006

Army officials are investigating

Uh-huh. With a large supply of hand creme and tissues, no doubt.
posted by lumpenprole at 6:56 PM on January 30, 2006

More on-topic, if the U.S. were to spread this video around the middle east in a psyops mission, that would scare the shit out of them. Scratch that, they are all repressed gays anyway.
posted by snsranch at 7:02 PM on January 30, 2006

But apparently this isn't a typical case of getting drunk and rowdy because they have been working for 40 hours straight with little or no sleep.

No, they had obviously been working for 40 hours gay.
posted by wakko at 7:12 PM on January 30, 2006

ericb, don't kid yourself - this is America. We don't want no gays defending our glorious homeland in the ongoing war against terror. We know the truth about those gays and we don't need no science tryin to tell us otherwise!

I guess I should state that I'm kidding. I do think that the UK and Australia might be more accepting of homosexuality than we are; I mean, we can be pretty primitive. And, after all, God hates gays.

We don't wanna piss God off!
posted by tcobretti at 7:14 PM on January 30, 2006

“THAT is why GAY doesn't work,” - snsranch

Perhaps more lube?
/sarcasm.

There are women going through the same shit. This might foster a bit more empathy for that. Less tolerance for it. I wouldn’t mind that.

“Not many white soldiers would stand up for the black ones, for fear of being labeled black-lovers themselves."”- nkyad

60-70 years ago, perfectly true. Doesn’t make it right, but it was how it was. And I don’t think b_thinky is assertin’ so much as observin.’


“...everyone in the barracks was totally drunk and some guy decided to...” - snsranch

Pretty much all tales start like that.

I remember a story about some guys at Bragg stuffing a gay guy in a locker and throwing him out a second floor window over and over and over.

Yeah, it’s not good for morale. But it’s changable. Not that being an asshole in whatever regard won’t get you a beating.
I used a throat strike on a guy who was somewhat drunk and trying to kiss me (not in jest). Didn’t try to kill him, but I didn’t much care. I’ve never forced myself on a woman (or anyone else) and that kind of behavior really gets to me.

That said... “gayhood?”


“24 countries... no reported breakdown in morale or command structure...”
- ericb

I don’t know erib, I think the American military has a different culture. I concede though that culture can be changed. But a LOT of guys were very pissed about the don’t ask don’t tell thing. It’s anecdotal evidence of course. It might work. I’ll tell you though, we’d need a hell of a lot more NCOs than we have now to make it work.

Any of these guys have double A tatoos?

/ I un-jinxed - PissOnYourParade ‘cause you said my name after.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:15 PM on January 30, 2006

Pretty silly how in that last link the guy starts out by asserting his straightness. Middle school behavior if you ask me.

"Not that I'm a negro or anything, but I do think racial discrimination is wrong..."
posted by Citizen Premier at 7:51 PM on January 30, 2006

This is perhaps the hottest thing since emo boys kissing.
posted by matkline at 8:01 PM on January 30, 2006

You know, the chestbeating crap is completely offtopic and inappropriate. By chestbeating, I mean all of you who are piping up to say, "I knew this gay guy once! He hit on me and I kicked his ass!" Or, "I knew this gay guy once who acted really dumb, but as long as he "kept his pantyhose to himself..."

Morons.

And hey, if a gay guy rapes another guy, it's the perpetrator's fault, but if a woman is raped, the same guys are screaming that it's the fault of the victim. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.
posted by digitalis at 8:09 PM on January 30, 2006

Digitalis,
Your comments are totally uncalled for and irrelevant. I don't recall anyone here blaming a woman for being raped. You've simply applied what some people might say, to a large group of people who are just providing anecdotal evidence of what happened in their cases.
posted by matkline at 8:12 PM on January 30, 2006

smedleyman: you liked "gayhood" hooorrayyy!!1

Glad I could make a difference!

digitalis: STFU! dumbass! Oh shit, sorry man, that was you! Really, sorry, didn't mean to out you as the pantyhose guy. Shit, really, sorry man@! Oh, and if you want to call me out as a moran again, bring it home fucker! It wouldn't be the first time I kicked your ass.
posted by snsranch at 9:39 PM on January 30, 2006

This thread is useless without pictures.
posted by dazed_one at 10:08 PM on January 30, 2006

A year later he was convicted of raping/coercing another young soldier. It was bad, the kid had to be hospitalized etc.

So maybe if you had spoken up sooner you could have saved that other soldier a lot of pain. Nobody wins when bullshit coercion is used on *anyone*. I think you should have blown the whistle on the guy, right then.

It takes balls, but hey, a lot of stuff in life takes balls. And you've got them, right?
posted by beth at 3:00 AM on January 31, 2006

Thanks for saying that Beth, you beat me to it. I am really grateful we have serving members on this site and appreciate your info. BUT why did someone have to be raped, even after you got your promo? Blame with the perp, obviously but not talking up.......

Clearly women are in the minority of commentators on this thread but I found this interesting
"what harassment was continuing related more to women soldiers than gay personnel."
At the end of the day I believe gay service men and women will be accepted, but that acceptance will be similar to women's acceptance in the military, partial.
posted by Wilder at 3:18 AM on January 31, 2006

these flaming photosexuals.

they like to fuck light?

Achilles, the baddest motherfucker evar to fight in a war, was very very gay

Should known by the heels.
posted by jonmc at 7:47 AM on January 31, 2006

As a gay guy let me just say A: I have had a lot of gay freinds who have served in the military and lived to tell about it. Sometimes the other guys serving with them knew sometimes they didn't. I can even think of one guy who actualy met his current partner on a sub. Once you get through all the homophobia guy guys and straight guys CAN and do work together. Just because YOU may not WANT to know he's gay doesn't change the fact that guy next to you might be gay. B: let me say also say that as a gay guy.. this thread is useless with out pics.
posted by wyldeboi at 8:18 AM on January 31, 2006

I can even think of one guy who actualy met his current partner on a sub.

Down periscope, indeed.

sorry.
posted by jonmc at 8:50 AM on January 31, 2006

“...let me say also say that as a gay guy.. this thread is useless with out pics.”

Oh, right. How purile. Because only gay guys can enjoy homoerotic photos, right?

Phsheah. Like we all can’t enjoy hot, hot cocks just because we’re NOT homosexual.

You elitist gay guys can dish it out but you can’t take it.

Or something.

Look, whatever my point is - I STRONGLY assert it.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:33 AM on January 31, 2006

So, Smedleyman, wanna go back to my place?
posted by jonmc at 9:35 AM on January 31, 2006

Sure, just because two grown men put on bathrobes, drink martinis and want to fry up a couple of steaks together, is no reason to discriminate.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:49 AM on January 31, 2006

Soldiers Separated As Officials Investigate Gay Porn Claims.
posted by ericb at 9:51 AM on January 31, 2006

It's so nice to hear the US army has its priorities set to the highest standards. Of all the things they should be investigating...

They should have handed out questionnaires to the target audience: do you prefer to be killed, maimed or tortured by a gay, straight or bisex soldier? Fat, thin, tall, short, white, black, hispanic? Age? Gender? What would make you more comfortable as you go and meet your maker? You can select multiple answers.

Just kidding. I support the troops.
posted by funambulist at 10:01 AM on January 31, 2006

"Sure, just because two grown men put on bathrobes, drink martinis and want to fry up a couple of steaks together, is no reason to discriminate."

WHAT??! Yes it is, if you're gonna FRY the steaks!! You'll ruin them!

Dude, charcoal-grilled is the only way to go there. However, I'll let you slide if you use a gas grill, because I know jonmc lives in the big city...
posted by zoogleplex at 1:28 PM on January 31, 2006

So....you don't fry plo-chops?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:27 PM on January 31, 2006

7 U.S. soldiers charged in Web porn case.
posted by ericb at 7:01 PM on February 24, 2006